TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 75 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245450; 15035-6_0075 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 75 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 50 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245418; 15035-6_0050 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 37 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245400; 15035-6_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245400?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 36 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245383; 15035-6_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 25 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245261; 15035-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245261?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 24 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245246; 15035-6_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 23 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245227; 15035-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 6 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245184; 15035-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 130 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245086; 15035-6_0130 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 130 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 129 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245075; 15035-6_0129 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 129 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 128 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245067; 15035-6_0128 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 128 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 120 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245053; 15035-6_0120 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 120 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 119 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245041; 15035-6_0119 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 119 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 111 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245033; 15035-6_0111 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 111 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 110 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245022; 15035-6_0110 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 110 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 99 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245012; 15035-6_0099 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 99 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 98 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896244999; 15035-6_0098 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 98 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896244999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 97 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896244986; 15035-6_0097 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 97 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896244986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 112 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896238761; 15035-6_0112 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 112 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896238761?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 109 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896238730; 15035-6_0109 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 109 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896238730?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 94 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896238708; 15035-6_0094 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 94 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896238708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 93 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896238671; 15035-6_0093 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 93 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896238671?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 91 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896238643; 15035-6_0091 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 91 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896238643?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 70 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896236812; 15035-6_0070 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 70 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896236812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 68 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896236743; 15035-6_0068 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 68 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896236743?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 116 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896235381; 15035-6_0116 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 116 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896235381?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 115 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896235333; 15035-6_0115 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 115 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896235333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 57 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896233465; 15035-6_0057 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896233465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 56 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896233432; 15035-6_0056 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896233432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 55 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896233388; 15035-6_0055 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896233388?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 34 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896233328; 15035-6_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896233328?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 22 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896233182; 15035-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896233182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 21 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896233146; 15035-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896233146?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 20 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896233113; 15035-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896233113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 100 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896233034; 15035-6_0100 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 100 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896233034?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 5 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896229124; 15035-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896229124?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 126 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896228991; 15035-6_0126 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 126 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896228991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 66 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896227282; 15035-6_0066 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 66 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896227282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 40 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896227240; 15035-6_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896227240?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 39 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896227190; 15035-6_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896227190?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 38 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896227151; 15035-6_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896227151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 28 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896226961; 15035-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896226961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 26 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896226900; 15035-6_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896226900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 72 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896224891; 15035-6_0072 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 72 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896224891?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 71 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896224818; 15035-6_0071 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 71 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896224818?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 58 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896224787; 15035-6_0058 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896224787?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 43 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896224716; 15035-6_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896224716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 42 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896224662; 15035-6_0042 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896224662?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 32 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896224173; 15035-6_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896224173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 105 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896220591; 15035-6_0105 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 105 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896220591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 96 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896220514; 15035-6_0096 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 96 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896220514?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 95 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896220441; 15035-6_0095 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 95 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896220441?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 19 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896215092; 15035-6_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896215092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 18 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896215026; 15035-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896215026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 87 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896213399; 15035-6_0087 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 87 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896213399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 80 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896213364; 15035-6_0080 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 80 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896213364?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 79 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896213323; 15035-6_0079 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 79 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896213323?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 45 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896213211; 15035-6_0045 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896213211?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 44 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896213165; 15035-6_0044 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896213165?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 14 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896212746; 15035-6_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896212746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 133 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896211925; 15035-6_0133 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 133 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896211925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 132 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896211866; 15035-6_0132 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 132 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896211866?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896211816; 15035-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896211816?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 131 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896211805; 15035-6_0131 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 131 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896211805?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 118 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896211727; 15035-6_0118 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 118 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896211727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 117 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896211666; 15035-6_0117 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 117 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896211666?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 102 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896211603; 15035-6_0102 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 102 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896211603?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 101 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896211564; 15035-6_0101 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 101 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896211564?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 81 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896211494; 15035-6_0081 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 81 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896211494?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 137 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896200713; 15035-6_0137 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 137 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896200713?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 136 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896200655; 15035-6_0136 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 136 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896200655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 125 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896200585; 15035-6_0125 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 125 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896200585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 124 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896200532; 15035-6_0124 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 124 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896200532?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 4 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896191602; 15035-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896191602?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896191556; 15035-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896191556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 54 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896191471; 15035-6_0054 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896191471?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 53 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896191372; 15035-6_0053 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896191372?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 13 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896190754; 15035-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896190754?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 12 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896190702; 15035-6_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896190702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 135 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896190583; 15035-6_0135 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 135 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896190583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 10 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896190582; 15035-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896190582?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 9 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896190531; 15035-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896190531?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 123 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896190460; 15035-6_0123 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 123 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896190460?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 8 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896190450; 15035-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896190450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 121 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896190319; 15035-6_0121 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 121 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896190319?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 114 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896190223; 15035-6_0114 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 114 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896190223?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 103 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896190095; 15035-6_0103 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 103 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896190095?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 84 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896182375; 15035-6_0084 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 84 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896182375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 83 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896180811; 15035-6_0083 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 83 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896180811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 82 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896180706; 15035-6_0082 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 82 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896180706?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 78 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896180652; 15035-6_0078 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 78 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896180652?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 77 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896180602; 15035-6_0077 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 77 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896180602?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 76 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896180528; 15035-6_0076 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 76 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896180528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 61 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896180464; 15035-6_0061 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896180464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 60 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896180417; 15035-6_0060 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896180417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 59 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896180357; 15035-6_0059 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896180357?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 63 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896176162; 15035-6_0063 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 63 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896176162?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 62 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896176129; 15035-6_0062 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896176129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 47 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896176039; 15035-6_0047 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896176039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 41 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896175998; 15035-6_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896175998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 30 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896175689; 15035-6_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896175689?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 29 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896175643; 15035-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896175643?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 138 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896175314; 15035-6_0138 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 138 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896175314?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 108 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896175260; 15035-6_0108 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 108 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896175260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 107 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896175195; 15035-6_0107 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 107 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896175195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 89 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896175146; 15035-6_0089 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 89 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896175146?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 65 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896175108; 15035-6_0065 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office, in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. These include about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas located outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages about 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would make land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate three areas of critical environmental concern; protect wilderness characteristics on 55,400 acres; allocate six special recreation management areas (SRMAs); reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide multi-use, utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions under Alternative E would: build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when use is compatible with resource protection; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails including the Anza National Historical Trail; protect wilderness characteristics on 110,900 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; allocate one SRMA; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No multi-use utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would respond to the establishment of SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110276, 1,421 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 65 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/003 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896175108?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BARREN RIDGE RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, GRANT, KERN AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894610229; 15033 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of a critical power transmission line to connect new sources of renewable energy with demand centers in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, Kern and Los Angeles Counties, California is proposed. The Barren Ridge Renewable Transmission Project (BRRTP) is necessary to accommodate new wind and solar projects in the Tehachapi Mountains and Mojave Desert that are in various stages of planning and development. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) has applied to the Forest Service for a special use authorization and to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant for the project. The BRRTP would span approximately 75 miles from the Mojave Desert south to the San Fernando Valley and extend another 12 miles west to the Castaic Power Plant, a pump-storage generating facility where renewable energy can be stored until needed to meet utility customer power needs. The proposed action would include: 1) expansion of the existing Barren Ridge Switching Station (BRSS); 2) construction of a new electrical switching station within Haskell Canyon near the southern boundary of the Angeles National Forest (ANF); 3) construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line from the BRSS to Haskell Canyon on double-circuit structures; 4) upgrade of 76 miles of the existing Owens Gorge-Rinaldi 230-kV transmission line with larger capacity conductors between the BRSS and Rinaldi Substation; and 5) addition of a 12-mile 230-kV circuit on existing double circuit structures from Haskell Canyon to the Castaic Power Plant. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Only the new double-circuit 230-kV transmission line would differ between the action alternatives. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 2), a new 61-mile-long transmission line would run south from the BRSS near the unincorporated community of Mojave, through the Antelope Valley and one mile east of the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve, before continuing onto the ANF for 13 miles and ending at the proposed Haskell Canyon switching station. The entire route would remain within designated utility corridors and would parallel existing transmission lines. Under Alternative 1, an 83-mile-long transmission line would traverse the ANF for 15.9 miles. Alternative 2a is similar to Alternative 2 and would involve construction of a 63-mile-long transmission line that would avoid the unincorporated community of Green Valley. Alternative 3 would route the transmission line through Southern California Edison's Antelope Valley Substation and would extend a total of 76 miles including 4.4 miles on the ANF. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed BRRTP would provide about 1,100 megawatts of additional power transmission capacity to access vital wind and solar resources that are necessary for LADWP to meet the state-mandated 33 percent renewable energy standard. In addition to accessing clean, renewable energy resources, the $233 million project would also enhance transmission capacity to improve reliability and diversify the region's energy supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would generate excessive levels of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, impact traffic on local roads, and affect 15 sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Under the proposed alternative, the new 230-kV transmission line would cross 78 streams and result in 57 to 70 acres of permanent ground disturbance. Operation would cause cumulative impacts to slender mariposa lily, short-jointed beavertail cactus, desert tortoise, and California gnatcatcher. Visual and recreation resources, including the Pacific Coast National Scenic Trail, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110274, Volume I--1,042 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--1,123 pages, Volume III--Technical Reports, Volume IV-Technical Reports, Volume V--Maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Angeles National Forest KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894610229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BARREN+RIDGE+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+GRANT%2C+KERN+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BARREN+RIDGE+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+GRANT%2C+KERN+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Vallejo, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159467; 15022-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159456; 15022-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159456?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159445; 15022-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=AllAfrica.com&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159431; 15022-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159399; 15022-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=unknown&rft.jtitle=AllAfrica.com&rft.atitle=Further+Consolidating+Ethio-China+Bi-Lateral+Ties+%5Beditorial%5D&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=AllAfrica.com&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159383; 15022-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159374; 15022-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NIMBUS HATCHERY FISH PASSAGE PROJECT, RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - NIMBUS HATCHERY FISH PASSAGE PROJECT, RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158934; 15025-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The removal or replacement of a fish diversion weir at the Nimbus Fish Hatchery in Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation built the hatchery along the lower American River in 1955 to mitigate for the loss of spawning habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead trout caused by the construction of Nimbus Dam. The Hatchery and weir are about 0.25 mile downstream of the dam on the south side of the river. The existing fish weir, which helps adult salmon enter the fish ladder, is aging, susceptible to damage from high flows, and requires annual flow reductions for maintenance. Key issues include habitat and fisheries protection, recreation, safety and public access, hydrology, and potential contamination by the invasive New Zealand mudsnail. This final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and two approaches to address the problems associated with the existing diversion weir. Under Alternative 1, a concrete flume fish passageway would be constructed from the hatchery to the stilling basin downstream of Nimbus Dam and the diversion weir would be removed. Nimbus Dam would function as the upstream barrier to fish migration. A cofferdam or temporary watertight structure would be used to dewater the site for constructing the entrance to the fish channel. Two implementation options for Alternative 1 are under consideration. Under Alternative 1A, fishing closures based on existing regulations would apply all year within a radius of 250 feet of the modified fish passageway entrance and the existing hatchery fishway outfall. Under Alternative 1C, which is the preferred alternative, a new regulation would be implemented to close fishing year-round between Nimbus Dam and the U.S. Geological Survey gauging station cable crossing. Alternative 2 would involve replacement of the diversion weir with a 750-foot-long, 52-foot-wide concrete weir that would span the width of the river just upstream of the existing ladder entrance. Three visitor management options for Nimbus Shoals are also under consideration: public vehicle access with defined parking, walk-in only access (no public vehicle access), and no public access. Public vehicle access with defined parking is the preferred option. Construction costs for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are estimated at $7.3 million and $12 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help to maintain a reliable system for collecting adult fish and to mitigate the effects of lost spawning habitat. Removal of the aging weir would eliminate the need for flow reductions and thus increase operational flexibility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Weir removal would allow all spawning fish to enter the Nimbus Dam stilling basin, resulting in increased sportfishing pressures on protected Chinook salmon and steelhead unless fishing regulations are changed. Continued sportfishing in the area would also result in the potential for increased spread of the New Zealand mudsnail. Under all action alternatives, construction activities would increase the potential for water quality degradation due to disturbance of river sediments and silt runoff from disturbed areas. Significant noise impacts would occur from construction equipment operating in the riverbed during weir demolition. Sportfishing opportunities in the area would be reduced under Alternative 1C. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0579, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110266, 474 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - Weirs KW - American River KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NIMBUS+HATCHERY+FISH+PASSAGE+PROJECT%2C+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NIMBUS+HATCHERY+FISH+PASSAGE+PROJECT%2C+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NIMBUS HATCHERY FISH PASSAGE PROJECT, RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - NIMBUS HATCHERY FISH PASSAGE PROJECT, RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158927; 15025-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The removal or replacement of a fish diversion weir at the Nimbus Fish Hatchery in Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation built the hatchery along the lower American River in 1955 to mitigate for the loss of spawning habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead trout caused by the construction of Nimbus Dam. The Hatchery and weir are about 0.25 mile downstream of the dam on the south side of the river. The existing fish weir, which helps adult salmon enter the fish ladder, is aging, susceptible to damage from high flows, and requires annual flow reductions for maintenance. Key issues include habitat and fisheries protection, recreation, safety and public access, hydrology, and potential contamination by the invasive New Zealand mudsnail. This final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and two approaches to address the problems associated with the existing diversion weir. Under Alternative 1, a concrete flume fish passageway would be constructed from the hatchery to the stilling basin downstream of Nimbus Dam and the diversion weir would be removed. Nimbus Dam would function as the upstream barrier to fish migration. A cofferdam or temporary watertight structure would be used to dewater the site for constructing the entrance to the fish channel. Two implementation options for Alternative 1 are under consideration. Under Alternative 1A, fishing closures based on existing regulations would apply all year within a radius of 250 feet of the modified fish passageway entrance and the existing hatchery fishway outfall. Under Alternative 1C, which is the preferred alternative, a new regulation would be implemented to close fishing year-round between Nimbus Dam and the U.S. Geological Survey gauging station cable crossing. Alternative 2 would involve replacement of the diversion weir with a 750-foot-long, 52-foot-wide concrete weir that would span the width of the river just upstream of the existing ladder entrance. Three visitor management options for Nimbus Shoals are also under consideration: public vehicle access with defined parking, walk-in only access (no public vehicle access), and no public access. Public vehicle access with defined parking is the preferred option. Construction costs for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are estimated at $7.3 million and $12 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help to maintain a reliable system for collecting adult fish and to mitigate the effects of lost spawning habitat. Removal of the aging weir would eliminate the need for flow reductions and thus increase operational flexibility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Weir removal would allow all spawning fish to enter the Nimbus Dam stilling basin, resulting in increased sportfishing pressures on protected Chinook salmon and steelhead unless fishing regulations are changed. Continued sportfishing in the area would also result in the potential for increased spread of the New Zealand mudsnail. Under all action alternatives, construction activities would increase the potential for water quality degradation due to disturbance of river sediments and silt runoff from disturbed areas. Significant noise impacts would occur from construction equipment operating in the riverbed during weir demolition. Sportfishing opportunities in the area would be reduced under Alternative 1C. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0579, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110266, 474 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - Weirs KW - American River KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158927?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NIMBUS+HATCHERY+FISH+PASSAGE+PROJECT%2C+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NIMBUS+HATCHERY+FISH+PASSAGE+PROJECT%2C+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NIMBUS HATCHERY FISH PASSAGE PROJECT, RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - NIMBUS HATCHERY FISH PASSAGE PROJECT, RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158907; 15025-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The removal or replacement of a fish diversion weir at the Nimbus Fish Hatchery in Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation built the hatchery along the lower American River in 1955 to mitigate for the loss of spawning habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead trout caused by the construction of Nimbus Dam. The Hatchery and weir are about 0.25 mile downstream of the dam on the south side of the river. The existing fish weir, which helps adult salmon enter the fish ladder, is aging, susceptible to damage from high flows, and requires annual flow reductions for maintenance. Key issues include habitat and fisheries protection, recreation, safety and public access, hydrology, and potential contamination by the invasive New Zealand mudsnail. This final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and two approaches to address the problems associated with the existing diversion weir. Under Alternative 1, a concrete flume fish passageway would be constructed from the hatchery to the stilling basin downstream of Nimbus Dam and the diversion weir would be removed. Nimbus Dam would function as the upstream barrier to fish migration. A cofferdam or temporary watertight structure would be used to dewater the site for constructing the entrance to the fish channel. Two implementation options for Alternative 1 are under consideration. Under Alternative 1A, fishing closures based on existing regulations would apply all year within a radius of 250 feet of the modified fish passageway entrance and the existing hatchery fishway outfall. Under Alternative 1C, which is the preferred alternative, a new regulation would be implemented to close fishing year-round between Nimbus Dam and the U.S. Geological Survey gauging station cable crossing. Alternative 2 would involve replacement of the diversion weir with a 750-foot-long, 52-foot-wide concrete weir that would span the width of the river just upstream of the existing ladder entrance. Three visitor management options for Nimbus Shoals are also under consideration: public vehicle access with defined parking, walk-in only access (no public vehicle access), and no public access. Public vehicle access with defined parking is the preferred option. Construction costs for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are estimated at $7.3 million and $12 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help to maintain a reliable system for collecting adult fish and to mitigate the effects of lost spawning habitat. Removal of the aging weir would eliminate the need for flow reductions and thus increase operational flexibility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Weir removal would allow all spawning fish to enter the Nimbus Dam stilling basin, resulting in increased sportfishing pressures on protected Chinook salmon and steelhead unless fishing regulations are changed. Continued sportfishing in the area would also result in the potential for increased spread of the New Zealand mudsnail. Under all action alternatives, construction activities would increase the potential for water quality degradation due to disturbance of river sediments and silt runoff from disturbed areas. Significant noise impacts would occur from construction equipment operating in the riverbed during weir demolition. Sportfishing opportunities in the area would be reduced under Alternative 1C. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0579, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110266, 474 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - Weirs KW - American River KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NIMBUS+HATCHERY+FISH+PASSAGE+PROJECT%2C+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NIMBUS+HATCHERY+FISH+PASSAGE+PROJECT%2C+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 894158827; 15027-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of African-American History and Culture (NMAAHC) between 14th and 15th streets and Constitution Avenue and Madison Drive in Northwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The museum would be located on a five-acre parcel within the grounds of the Washington Monument. The Tier I final EIS for the project addressed six design alternatives, as well as a No Build Alternative. This Tier II final EIS analyzes five specific build alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The build alternatives each feature a Corona as the defining form of the visible building structure and the primary location for the galleries. Generally, four interior levels would be housed within the Corona and each alternative would feature two museum levels below grade. A primary entrance on the south side of the site would feature a hardscape plaza and service access and limited vehicular access would be provided from 14th Street. The building would incorporate passive heating and cooling, day lighting, comprehensive stormwater management, and energy conservation. Under Alternative 1, the Corona would sit atop a plinth that would accommodate a large ground floor program and frame the ground floor glass enclosure. Alternative 2 is based on a plaza concept and would divide the exhibit functions and administrative functions of NMAAHC into two distinct buildings. Alternative 3, the pavilion concept, is similar to Alternative 1, but without the plinth. Alternative 4, the refined pavilion concept, is similar to Alternative 3, but would feature a Corona with reduced above-grade dimensions and would include entries on both the north and south sides of the site. The Refined Pavilion 2 Alternative is the preferred alternative and evolved through the continued development of the museum design. Under this alternative, the Corona would be a singular, three-tiered building with vertical core elements providing the primary load-bearing support for the roof and gallery floors. The interior of the penthouse/5th floor would consist of office space, meeting rooms, and support space. Two full levels (the basement and the concourse) and a mezzanine level would be located below grade. The Refined Pavilion 2 Alternative would involve the construction of up to 372,000 gross square feet with a maximum effective building footprint of 59,100 square feet covering 25.3 percent of the site. The Corona would have an apparent height of 96.5 feet above grade and the height of the penthouse would be 109 feet above grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The museum would constitute the only institution providing a national meeting place for Americans to learn about the history and culture of African-Americans and their contributions to and relationship with every aspect of our national life. Increased visitation to the District of Columbia due to the attraction of the museum would boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The museum would displace an open space on the Washington Monument grounds of the National Mall, altering the historic boundaries of the grounds and altering the spatial organization of the grounds by diminishing the prominence of the Washington Monument as a central organizing feature. Significant impacts would also occur for buildings and structures located within the Monument grounds as well as the Federal Triangle along Constitution Avenue. Vegetation would be removed and the viewshed and specific vistas would be altered. The museum would be situated in an area in violation of federal standards regarding ozone and particulate matter. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-184). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0529D, Volume 34, Number 2. For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 08-0090D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0345F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110268, 598 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Buildings KW - Historic Sites KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+%28TIER+II+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+%28TIER+II+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158826; 15022-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158826?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158821; 15022-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158817; 15022-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158810; 15022-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BREVARD AND VOLUSIA COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BREVARD AND VOLUSIA COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 894158730; 15021-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A General Management Plan for the Canaveral National Seashore in Brevard and Volusia counties, Florida is proposed. The national seashore contains 24 miles of pristine, undeveloped beach along the Atlantic coast and is comprised of nearly 58,000 acres of barrier island, open lagoon, coastal hammock, pine flat-woods, and offshore waters. The seashore is prime habitat for many threatened and endangered species, and provides nesting beaches for several thousand protected marine turtles. Mosquito Lagoon, which encompasses more than two-thirds of the national seashore, is designated an estuary of national significance. The national seashore is managed by the National Park Service in partnership with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which owns approximately two-thirds of the national seashore, and the adjacent Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, which is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The current management plan was approved in 1982 and amended in 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives propose a different configuration of seven management zones within the national seashore based on the concept for each alternative. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative B), the national seashore would be managed to preserve and enhance the natural and historic landscape features associated with the national seashores eastern Florida coastal barrier island system. Emphasis would be placed on retaining the seashores relatively undeveloped character and providing uncrowded experiences by dispersing visitors via shuttle service or canoe, kayak, and bicycle trails. Under Alternative C, the national seashore would be managed as a place where visitors would explore and experience a wide range of opportunities that would be designed to provide an in-depth understanding of the natural and cultural history of eastern coastal Florida. Alternative modes of access to land- and water-based natural and cultural features would be available. Under Alternative D, the national seashore would be managed to focus on enhancing the existing lands, resources, and facilities. Outdoor recreational and educational opportunities that are consistent with preserving the national seashores natural and cultural resources would be promoted. There would be limited facility development. Coordination with partners would be increased to provide additional educational opportunities and programs for visitors and enhanced monitoring of Canaveral National Seashore resources. One-time facility costs associated with implementing alternatives B, C, and D are estimated at $19.4, $35.8, and $17.5 million, respectively. One-time non-facility costs are estimated at $2.1 million for each action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would address changing issues and conditions, incorporate new resource information, and provide comprehensive guidance for perpetuating natural systems, preserving cultural resources, and providing opportunities for quality visitor experiences over the next 20 years. Designation of a nonmotorized zone and a slow speed zone for boats in Mosquito Lagoon would benefit wildlife. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities and vehicle emissions would have adverse impacts on air quality. Construction and localized increases in impervious surfaces would cause negligible to minor impacts to soils, water resources, floodplains and wetlands Under the preferred alternative, visitor access near key habitat areas could have adverse impacts to wildlife and vegetation. Minor adverse impacts to soundscapes, noise, and air quality would occur in the long-term. Increased future visitation may also have long-term, minor adverse impacts due to crowding. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 93-626. JF - EPA number: 110262, 404 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Beaches KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Dunes KW - Estuaries KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Lagoons KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Coast KW - Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway KW - Canaveral National Seashore KW - Florida KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 93-626, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158730?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANAVERAL+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BREVARD+AND+VOLUSIA+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CANAVERAL+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BREVARD+AND+VOLUSIA+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Titusville, Florida; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158702; 15022-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158679; 15022-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158665; 15019-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A General Management Plan for Biscayne National Park in Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. Biscayne National Park is a marine park consisting of mostly submerged land and includes coral reefs, sandy shoals, 4,825 acres of largely undeveloped mangrove shoreline, and 42 keys or islands primarily composed of limestone and coral. Since the last comprehensive planning effort was completed in 1983, the population near the 173,000-acre park has greatly increased and visitor use patterns, types, and recreational interests have also changed. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives represent different ways to apply nine management zones to the national park. Alternative 2 would emphasize the recreational use of the park by providing a high level of services, facilities, and access to specific areas of the park. Under Alternative 3, visitors would be allowed a full range of experiences throughout most of the park and a permit system would be used to authorize a limited number of visitors to access some areas of the park. Management actions would provide strong natural and cultural resource protection and diverse visitor experiences. Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, would emphasize strong natural and cultural resource protection while providing a diversity of visitor experiences. Some areas would be reserved for focused types of visitor use. The concept for park management under Alternative 5 would be to promote the protection of natural resources, including taking actions to optimize conditions for protection and restoration. A permit system would be used in some parts of the park and other areas would have limited numbers of visitors, manner of access, and recreational activities. The preferred alternative for the general management plan would allow a limited amount of moderate resource impacts in high-use areas of the park, while some areas would be closed to visitors to protect sensitive resources and allow wildlife a respite from people. The multiuse zone would be applied to most of the parks water acreage and visitors could engage in a variety of activities such as sightseeing, boating, fishing, scuba diving, snorkeling, swimming, canoeing and kayaking, hiking, picnicking, camping, and visiting shipwrecks. There would be three slow speed zones and four shallow-water areas of the park would be designated for noncombustion engine use. Arsenicker, West Arsenicker, and Swan keys would be closed to visitation. The area of the visitor services/park administration zone on Boca Chita, Elliott, Adams, and Porgy keys would be reduced. A marine reserve zone would be designated to provide visitors the opportunity to experience a healthy, natural, and ecologically intact reef community. One-time costs associated with implementing the action alternatives range from $5.1 to $10.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would clearly define resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved in the national park for the next 20 years or more. Designated zones for slow speed and noncombustion engine use would help to separate conflicting visitor uses, increase boating safety, increase nonmotorized opportunities, and increase opportunities for solitude. The marine reserve zone would protect 2,663 acres of corals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Proposed development under the preferred alternative could impact American crocodiles, sea turtles, and Schaus swallowtail butterfly. Additional speed and boat engine restrictions would exclude some visitors from designated areas. Implementation of the preferred alternative would require a total of 14 additional law enforcement and resource management staff. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). JF - EPA number: 110260, 360 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway KW - Atlantic Coast KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Biscayne National Park KW - Florida KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158665?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158652; 15022-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158652?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 16386627; 15019 AB - PURPOSE: A General Management Plan for Biscayne National Park in Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. Biscayne National Park is a marine park consisting of mostly submerged land and includes coral reefs, sandy shoals, 4,825 acres of largely undeveloped mangrove shoreline, and 42 keys or islands primarily composed of limestone and coral. Since the last comprehensive planning effort was completed in 1983, the population near the 173,000-acre park has greatly increased and visitor use patterns, types, and recreational interests have also changed. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives represent different ways to apply nine management zones to the national park. Alternative 2 would emphasize the recreational use of the park by providing a high level of services, facilities, and access to specific areas of the park. Under Alternative 3, visitors would be allowed a full range of experiences throughout most of the park and a permit system would be used to authorize a limited number of visitors to access some areas of the park. Management actions would provide strong natural and cultural resource protection and diverse visitor experiences. Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, would emphasize strong natural and cultural resource protection while providing a diversity of visitor experiences. Some areas would be reserved for focused types of visitor use. The concept for park management under Alternative 5 would be to promote the protection of natural resources, including taking actions to optimize conditions for protection and restoration. A permit system would be used in some parts of the park and other areas would have limited numbers of visitors, manner of access, and recreational activities. The preferred alternative for the general management plan would allow a limited amount of moderate resource impacts in high-use areas of the park, while some areas would be closed to visitors to protect sensitive resources and allow wildlife a respite from people. The multiuse zone would be applied to most of the parks water acreage and visitors could engage in a variety of activities such as sightseeing, boating, fishing, scuba diving, snorkeling, swimming, canoeing and kayaking, hiking, picnicking, camping, and visiting shipwrecks. There would be three slow speed zones and four shallow-water areas of the park would be designated for noncombustion engine use. Arsenicker, West Arsenicker, and Swan keys would be closed to visitation. The area of the visitor services/park administration zone on Boca Chita, Elliott, Adams, and Porgy keys would be reduced. A marine reserve zone would be designated to provide visitors the opportunity to experience a healthy, natural, and ecologically intact reef community. One-time costs associated with implementing the action alternatives range from $5.1 to $10.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would clearly define resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved in the national park for the next 20 years or more. Designated zones for slow speed and noncombustion engine use would help to separate conflicting visitor uses, increase boating safety, increase nonmotorized opportunities, and increase opportunities for solitude. The marine reserve zone would protect 2,663 acres of corals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Proposed development under the preferred alternative could impact American crocodiles, sea turtles, and Schaus swallowtail butterfly. Additional speed and boat engine restrictions would exclude some visitors from designated areas. Implementation of the preferred alternative would require a total of 14 additional law enforcement and resource management staff. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). JF - EPA number: 110260, 360 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway KW - Atlantic Coast KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Biscayne National Park KW - Florida KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16386627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16381333; 15022 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NIMBUS HATCHERY FISH PASSAGE PROJECT, RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16374468; 15025 AB - PURPOSE: The removal or replacement of a fish diversion weir at the Nimbus Fish Hatchery in Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation built the hatchery along the lower American River in 1955 to mitigate for the loss of spawning habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead trout caused by the construction of Nimbus Dam. The Hatchery and weir are about 0.25 mile downstream of the dam on the south side of the river. The existing fish weir, which helps adult salmon enter the fish ladder, is aging, susceptible to damage from high flows, and requires annual flow reductions for maintenance. Key issues include habitat and fisheries protection, recreation, safety and public access, hydrology, and potential contamination by the invasive New Zealand mudsnail. This final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and two approaches to address the problems associated with the existing diversion weir. Under Alternative 1, a concrete flume fish passageway would be constructed from the hatchery to the stilling basin downstream of Nimbus Dam and the diversion weir would be removed. Nimbus Dam would function as the upstream barrier to fish migration. A cofferdam or temporary watertight structure would be used to dewater the site for constructing the entrance to the fish channel. Two implementation options for Alternative 1 are under consideration. Under Alternative 1A, fishing closures based on existing regulations would apply all year within a radius of 250 feet of the modified fish passageway entrance and the existing hatchery fishway outfall. Under Alternative 1C, which is the preferred alternative, a new regulation would be implemented to close fishing year-round between Nimbus Dam and the U.S. Geological Survey gauging station cable crossing. Alternative 2 would involve replacement of the diversion weir with a 750-foot-long, 52-foot-wide concrete weir that would span the width of the river just upstream of the existing ladder entrance. Three visitor management options for Nimbus Shoals are also under consideration: public vehicle access with defined parking, walk-in only access (no public vehicle access), and no public access. Public vehicle access with defined parking is the preferred option. Construction costs for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are estimated at $7.3 million and $12 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help to maintain a reliable system for collecting adult fish and to mitigate the effects of lost spawning habitat. Removal of the aging weir would eliminate the need for flow reductions and thus increase operational flexibility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Weir removal would allow all spawning fish to enter the Nimbus Dam stilling basin, resulting in increased sportfishing pressures on protected Chinook salmon and steelhead unless fishing regulations are changed. Continued sportfishing in the area would also result in the potential for increased spread of the New Zealand mudsnail. Under all action alternatives, construction activities would increase the potential for water quality degradation due to disturbance of river sediments and silt runoff from disturbed areas. Significant noise impacts would occur from construction equipment operating in the riverbed during weir demolition. Sportfishing opportunities in the area would be reduced under Alternative 1C. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0579, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110266, 474 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - Weirs KW - American River KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374468?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NIMBUS+HATCHERY+FISH+PASSAGE+PROJECT%2C+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NIMBUS+HATCHERY+FISH+PASSAGE+PROJECT%2C+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 16370690; 15027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of African-American History and Culture (NMAAHC) between 14th and 15th streets and Constitution Avenue and Madison Drive in Northwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The museum would be located on a five-acre parcel within the grounds of the Washington Monument. The Tier I final EIS for the project addressed six design alternatives, as well as a No Build Alternative. This Tier II final EIS analyzes five specific build alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The build alternatives each feature a Corona as the defining form of the visible building structure and the primary location for the galleries. Generally, four interior levels would be housed within the Corona and each alternative would feature two museum levels below grade. A primary entrance on the south side of the site would feature a hardscape plaza and service access and limited vehicular access would be provided from 14th Street. The building would incorporate passive heating and cooling, day lighting, comprehensive stormwater management, and energy conservation. Under Alternative 1, the Corona would sit atop a plinth that would accommodate a large ground floor program and frame the ground floor glass enclosure. Alternative 2 is based on a plaza concept and would divide the exhibit functions and administrative functions of NMAAHC into two distinct buildings. Alternative 3, the pavilion concept, is similar to Alternative 1, but without the plinth. Alternative 4, the refined pavilion concept, is similar to Alternative 3, but would feature a Corona with reduced above-grade dimensions and would include entries on both the north and south sides of the site. The Refined Pavilion 2 Alternative is the preferred alternative and evolved through the continued development of the museum design. Under this alternative, the Corona would be a singular, three-tiered building with vertical core elements providing the primary load-bearing support for the roof and gallery floors. The interior of the penthouse/5th floor would consist of office space, meeting rooms, and support space. Two full levels (the basement and the concourse) and a mezzanine level would be located below grade. The Refined Pavilion 2 Alternative would involve the construction of up to 372,000 gross square feet with a maximum effective building footprint of 59,100 square feet covering 25.3 percent of the site. The Corona would have an apparent height of 96.5 feet above grade and the height of the penthouse would be 109 feet above grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The museum would constitute the only institution providing a national meeting place for Americans to learn about the history and culture of African-Americans and their contributions to and relationship with every aspect of our national life. Increased visitation to the District of Columbia due to the attraction of the museum would boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The museum would displace an open space on the Washington Monument grounds of the National Mall, altering the historic boundaries of the grounds and altering the spatial organization of the grounds by diminishing the prominence of the Washington Monument as a central organizing feature. Significant impacts would also occur for buildings and structures located within the Monument grounds as well as the Federal Triangle along Constitution Avenue. Vegetation would be removed and the viewshed and specific vistas would be altered. The museum would be situated in an area in violation of federal standards regarding ozone and particulate matter. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-184). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0529D, Volume 34, Number 2. For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 08-0090D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0345F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110268, 598 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Buildings KW - Historic Sites KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16370690?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+%28TIER+II+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+%28TIER+II+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2011 WESTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 218, TEXAS (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2007). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2011 WESTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 218, TEXAS (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2007). AN - 894159581; 15012-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Lease Sale 218, the remaining oil and gas lease sale in the Western Planning Area (WPA) under the five-year Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program (2007-2012), is proposed. The WPA sale area encompasses 28.7 million acres located 10 miles offshore of Texas and extends seaward to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone in water depths up to 10,978 feet. This final supplemental EIS addresses the potential changes to baseline conditions that took place in 2010 as a result of: 1) the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) event between April 20 and July 15, the period when oil flowed from the Macondo well in Mississippi Canyon Block 252; 2) September 19, when the well was declared dead after the bottom kill procedure; and 3) the immediate and acute impacts that have been reported or surveyed since that time. Proposed WPA Lease Sale 218, originally analyzed in the 2007 Multisale EIS and again in the 2009-2012 supplemental EIS, is scheduled to be held in 2011. Key issues related to OCS exploration, development, production, and transportation activities include: oil spills, wetlands loss, air emissions, discharges, water quality, trash and debris, structure and pipeline emplacement activities, platform removal, vessel and helicopter traffic, multiple-use conflicts, support services, population fluctuations, demands on public services, land-use planning, tourism, aesthetic interference, cultural impacts, environmental justice, and consistency with coastal zone management programs. Other issues include impacts from the DWH event and from past and future hurricanes on environmental and socioeconomic resources, and on coastal and offshore infrastructure. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are evaluated in this final supplemental EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the WPA lease sale would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA for oil and gas operations, with the following exceptions: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap portion of the 1.4-nautical-mile buffer zone north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of this proposed WPA lease sale is 0.222 to 0.423 billion barrels of oil and 1.495 to 2.647 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Alternative B would exclude the unleased blocks near biologically sensitive topographic features. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement has determined that the conclusions as presented in the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS for a WPA lease sale remain valid. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed sale would provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on blocks in the WPA planning area in the Gulf of Mexico OCS in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. These resources would help the nation in its effort to become independent of foreign sources of fossil fuel energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The impact from activities related to normal development of the leased resources would be minimal. Pipeline landfalls would result in disturbance and destruction of near-shore habitat, dry shoreline habitat, and coastal wetland habitat. Accidental gas leaks or spills of oil or toxins related to hydrocarbon resource extraction or pipeline transport could result in significant damage to air quality, coastal and marine waters and the associated habitat systems, coastal barrier beaches and dunes, wetlands, seagrass communities, topographic features, deepwater benthic communities, marine mammals, sea turtles, fish and essential fish habitat and associated commercial and recreational fishing operations, and coastal recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the 2009-2012 final supplemental EIS, see 08-0389F, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110253, Volume I--493 pages, Volume II--503 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011-034 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Oil Spills KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159581?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2011+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+218%2C+TEXAS+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2007%29.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2011+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+218%2C+TEXAS+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2011 WESTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 218, TEXAS (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2007). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2011 WESTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 218, TEXAS (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2007). AN - 894159559; 15012-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Lease Sale 218, the remaining oil and gas lease sale in the Western Planning Area (WPA) under the five-year Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program (2007-2012), is proposed. The WPA sale area encompasses 28.7 million acres located 10 miles offshore of Texas and extends seaward to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone in water depths up to 10,978 feet. This final supplemental EIS addresses the potential changes to baseline conditions that took place in 2010 as a result of: 1) the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) event between April 20 and July 15, the period when oil flowed from the Macondo well in Mississippi Canyon Block 252; 2) September 19, when the well was declared dead after the bottom kill procedure; and 3) the immediate and acute impacts that have been reported or surveyed since that time. Proposed WPA Lease Sale 218, originally analyzed in the 2007 Multisale EIS and again in the 2009-2012 supplemental EIS, is scheduled to be held in 2011. Key issues related to OCS exploration, development, production, and transportation activities include: oil spills, wetlands loss, air emissions, discharges, water quality, trash and debris, structure and pipeline emplacement activities, platform removal, vessel and helicopter traffic, multiple-use conflicts, support services, population fluctuations, demands on public services, land-use planning, tourism, aesthetic interference, cultural impacts, environmental justice, and consistency with coastal zone management programs. Other issues include impacts from the DWH event and from past and future hurricanes on environmental and socioeconomic resources, and on coastal and offshore infrastructure. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are evaluated in this final supplemental EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the WPA lease sale would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA for oil and gas operations, with the following exceptions: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap portion of the 1.4-nautical-mile buffer zone north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of this proposed WPA lease sale is 0.222 to 0.423 billion barrels of oil and 1.495 to 2.647 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Alternative B would exclude the unleased blocks near biologically sensitive topographic features. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement has determined that the conclusions as presented in the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS for a WPA lease sale remain valid. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed sale would provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on blocks in the WPA planning area in the Gulf of Mexico OCS in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. These resources would help the nation in its effort to become independent of foreign sources of fossil fuel energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The impact from activities related to normal development of the leased resources would be minimal. Pipeline landfalls would result in disturbance and destruction of near-shore habitat, dry shoreline habitat, and coastal wetland habitat. Accidental gas leaks or spills of oil or toxins related to hydrocarbon resource extraction or pipeline transport could result in significant damage to air quality, coastal and marine waters and the associated habitat systems, coastal barrier beaches and dunes, wetlands, seagrass communities, topographic features, deepwater benthic communities, marine mammals, sea turtles, fish and essential fish habitat and associated commercial and recreational fishing operations, and coastal recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the 2009-2012 final supplemental EIS, see 08-0389F, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110253, Volume I--493 pages, Volume II--503 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011-034 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Oil Spills KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159559?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2011+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+218%2C+TEXAS+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2007%29.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2011+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+218%2C+TEXAS+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2011 WESTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 218, TEXAS (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2007). AN - 16373968; 15012 AB - PURPOSE: Lease Sale 218, the remaining oil and gas lease sale in the Western Planning Area (WPA) under the five-year Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program (2007-2012), is proposed. The WPA sale area encompasses 28.7 million acres located 10 miles offshore of Texas and extends seaward to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone in water depths up to 10,978 feet. This final supplemental EIS addresses the potential changes to baseline conditions that took place in 2010 as a result of: 1) the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) event between April 20 and July 15, the period when oil flowed from the Macondo well in Mississippi Canyon Block 252; 2) September 19, when the well was declared dead after the bottom kill procedure; and 3) the immediate and acute impacts that have been reported or surveyed since that time. Proposed WPA Lease Sale 218, originally analyzed in the 2007 Multisale EIS and again in the 2009-2012 supplemental EIS, is scheduled to be held in 2011. Key issues related to OCS exploration, development, production, and transportation activities include: oil spills, wetlands loss, air emissions, discharges, water quality, trash and debris, structure and pipeline emplacement activities, platform removal, vessel and helicopter traffic, multiple-use conflicts, support services, population fluctuations, demands on public services, land-use planning, tourism, aesthetic interference, cultural impacts, environmental justice, and consistency with coastal zone management programs. Other issues include impacts from the DWH event and from past and future hurricanes on environmental and socioeconomic resources, and on coastal and offshore infrastructure. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are evaluated in this final supplemental EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the WPA lease sale would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA for oil and gas operations, with the following exceptions: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap portion of the 1.4-nautical-mile buffer zone north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of this proposed WPA lease sale is 0.222 to 0.423 billion barrels of oil and 1.495 to 2.647 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Alternative B would exclude the unleased blocks near biologically sensitive topographic features. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement has determined that the conclusions as presented in the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS for a WPA lease sale remain valid. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed sale would provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on blocks in the WPA planning area in the Gulf of Mexico OCS in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. These resources would help the nation in its effort to become independent of foreign sources of fossil fuel energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The impact from activities related to normal development of the leased resources would be minimal. Pipeline landfalls would result in disturbance and destruction of near-shore habitat, dry shoreline habitat, and coastal wetland habitat. Accidental gas leaks or spills of oil or toxins related to hydrocarbon resource extraction or pipeline transport could result in significant damage to air quality, coastal and marine waters and the associated habitat systems, coastal barrier beaches and dunes, wetlands, seagrass communities, topographic features, deepwater benthic communities, marine mammals, sea turtles, fish and essential fish habitat and associated commercial and recreational fishing operations, and coastal recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the 2009-2012 final supplemental EIS, see 08-0389F, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110253, Volume I--493 pages, Volume II--503 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011-034 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Oil Spills KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16373968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2011+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+218%2C+TEXAS+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2007%29.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2011+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+218%2C+TEXAS+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696135; 15005-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of competitive mineral material sales for limestone and dolomite mining on two parcels of federal land in the Sloan Hills area of Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The Sloan Hills site contains geologic formations of calcium and magnesium carbonates (limestone and dolomite, respectively) that have been identified as suitable for the production of construction aggregate. The mining applicants, CEMEX (formerly Rinker Materials West, LLC) and Service Rock Products Corporation (SRP), selected the site because of the large volume of high-quality materials and its proximity to the area where construction materials would be needed most. CEMEX proposes to mine approximately 126 million tons of aggregate from the South site and SRP proposes to mine approximately 74 million tons of aggregate from the North site. Key issues identified during scoping relate to: air quality, noise, cultural resources, water supply, visual and lighting impacts, increased local traffic, vibrations from blasting, and property values. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 5), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the North and South sites would be auctioned as two separate parcels to two different mining companies. Alternative 2 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the North Site only, while Alternative 3 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the South Site only. The proposed North Site mine and associated facilities would be located within a 320-acre area in the south 1/2 of Section 29 of Township 23 South, Range 61 East. Once completed, the open pit mine would be approximately 143 acres in size. Ancillary facilities, include a crushing and screening plant, would be constructed on 46-acres in the northwest portion of the site, access roads and utility corridors would occur on approximately seven acres, and an unusable rock stockpile area would be located on 17 acres in the northeast portion of the site. The proposed South Site mine would be located on a 320-acre parcel adjacent to the proposed North Site mine and one mile southeast of the Sloan Road exit on Interstate 15. Facilities and operations would be similar to those proposed for the North Site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the sales would allow the applicant to mine high-quality limestone and dolomite to supply construction aggregate to the southern Las Vegas Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 1 would remove or destroy 6,100 cacti and yucca plants and result in impacts on special status plant species. Wildlife habitat in the 205-acre footprint of the mine would be permanently removed impacting special status species, including the desert tortoise. Recreational resources would be affected by removal of 640 acres that were previously available for dispersed recreation. An estimated 1,766 to 2,283 acre-feet of water would be needed over the life of the mine for each of the two sites. Deterioration of the surrounding roadway network due to project-related truck traffic would be significant and increased noise levels and changes to the visual character of the area could impact the experience of users of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and the North McCullough Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C 611 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110245, 518 pages, August 5, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Drilling KW - Limestone KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Surface Resources Act of 1955, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%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 - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 5, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696027; 15005-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of competitive mineral material sales for limestone and dolomite mining on two parcels of federal land in the Sloan Hills area of Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The Sloan Hills site contains geologic formations of calcium and magnesium carbonates (limestone and dolomite, respectively) that have been identified as suitable for the production of construction aggregate. The mining applicants, CEMEX (formerly Rinker Materials West, LLC) and Service Rock Products Corporation (SRP), selected the site because of the large volume of high-quality materials and its proximity to the area where construction materials would be needed most. CEMEX proposes to mine approximately 126 million tons of aggregate from the South site and SRP proposes to mine approximately 74 million tons of aggregate from the North site. Key issues identified during scoping relate to: air quality, noise, cultural resources, water supply, visual and lighting impacts, increased local traffic, vibrations from blasting, and property values. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 5), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the North and South sites would be auctioned as two separate parcels to two different mining companies. Alternative 2 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the North Site only, while Alternative 3 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the South Site only. The proposed North Site mine and associated facilities would be located within a 320-acre area in the south 1/2 of Section 29 of Township 23 South, Range 61 East. Once completed, the open pit mine would be approximately 143 acres in size. Ancillary facilities, include a crushing and screening plant, would be constructed on 46-acres in the northwest portion of the site, access roads and utility corridors would occur on approximately seven acres, and an unusable rock stockpile area would be located on 17 acres in the northeast portion of the site. The proposed South Site mine would be located on a 320-acre parcel adjacent to the proposed North Site mine and one mile southeast of the Sloan Road exit on Interstate 15. Facilities and operations would be similar to those proposed for the North Site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the sales would allow the applicant to mine high-quality limestone and dolomite to supply construction aggregate to the southern Las Vegas Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 1 would remove or destroy 6,100 cacti and yucca plants and result in impacts on special status plant species. Wildlife habitat in the 205-acre footprint of the mine would be permanently removed impacting special status species, including the desert tortoise. Recreational resources would be affected by removal of 640 acres that were previously available for dispersed recreation. An estimated 1,766 to 2,283 acre-feet of water would be needed over the life of the mine for each of the two sites. Deterioration of the surrounding roadway network due to project-related truck traffic would be significant and increased noise levels and changes to the visual character of the area could impact the experience of users of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and the North McCullough Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C 611 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110245, 518 pages, August 5, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Drilling KW - Limestone KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Surface Resources Act of 1955, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696027?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%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 - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 5, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696026; 15005-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of competitive mineral material sales for limestone and dolomite mining on two parcels of federal land in the Sloan Hills area of Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The Sloan Hills site contains geologic formations of calcium and magnesium carbonates (limestone and dolomite, respectively) that have been identified as suitable for the production of construction aggregate. The mining applicants, CEMEX (formerly Rinker Materials West, LLC) and Service Rock Products Corporation (SRP), selected the site because of the large volume of high-quality materials and its proximity to the area where construction materials would be needed most. CEMEX proposes to mine approximately 126 million tons of aggregate from the South site and SRP proposes to mine approximately 74 million tons of aggregate from the North site. Key issues identified during scoping relate to: air quality, noise, cultural resources, water supply, visual and lighting impacts, increased local traffic, vibrations from blasting, and property values. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 5), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the North and South sites would be auctioned as two separate parcels to two different mining companies. Alternative 2 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the North Site only, while Alternative 3 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the South Site only. The proposed North Site mine and associated facilities would be located within a 320-acre area in the south 1/2 of Section 29 of Township 23 South, Range 61 East. Once completed, the open pit mine would be approximately 143 acres in size. Ancillary facilities, include a crushing and screening plant, would be constructed on 46-acres in the northwest portion of the site, access roads and utility corridors would occur on approximately seven acres, and an unusable rock stockpile area would be located on 17 acres in the northeast portion of the site. The proposed South Site mine would be located on a 320-acre parcel adjacent to the proposed North Site mine and one mile southeast of the Sloan Road exit on Interstate 15. Facilities and operations would be similar to those proposed for the North Site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the sales would allow the applicant to mine high-quality limestone and dolomite to supply construction aggregate to the southern Las Vegas Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 1 would remove or destroy 6,100 cacti and yucca plants and result in impacts on special status plant species. Wildlife habitat in the 205-acre footprint of the mine would be permanently removed impacting special status species, including the desert tortoise. Recreational resources would be affected by removal of 640 acres that were previously available for dispersed recreation. An estimated 1,766 to 2,283 acre-feet of water would be needed over the life of the mine for each of the two sites. Deterioration of the surrounding roadway network due to project-related truck traffic would be significant and increased noise levels and changes to the visual character of the area could impact the experience of users of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and the North McCullough Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C 611 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110245, 518 pages, August 5, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Drilling KW - Limestone KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Surface Resources Act of 1955, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%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 - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 5, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696023; 15005-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of competitive mineral material sales for limestone and dolomite mining on two parcels of federal land in the Sloan Hills area of Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The Sloan Hills site contains geologic formations of calcium and magnesium carbonates (limestone and dolomite, respectively) that have been identified as suitable for the production of construction aggregate. The mining applicants, CEMEX (formerly Rinker Materials West, LLC) and Service Rock Products Corporation (SRP), selected the site because of the large volume of high-quality materials and its proximity to the area where construction materials would be needed most. CEMEX proposes to mine approximately 126 million tons of aggregate from the South site and SRP proposes to mine approximately 74 million tons of aggregate from the North site. Key issues identified during scoping relate to: air quality, noise, cultural resources, water supply, visual and lighting impacts, increased local traffic, vibrations from blasting, and property values. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 5), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the North and South sites would be auctioned as two separate parcels to two different mining companies. Alternative 2 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the North Site only, while Alternative 3 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the South Site only. The proposed North Site mine and associated facilities would be located within a 320-acre area in the south 1/2 of Section 29 of Township 23 South, Range 61 East. Once completed, the open pit mine would be approximately 143 acres in size. Ancillary facilities, include a crushing and screening plant, would be constructed on 46-acres in the northwest portion of the site, access roads and utility corridors would occur on approximately seven acres, and an unusable rock stockpile area would be located on 17 acres in the northeast portion of the site. The proposed South Site mine would be located on a 320-acre parcel adjacent to the proposed North Site mine and one mile southeast of the Sloan Road exit on Interstate 15. Facilities and operations would be similar to those proposed for the North Site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the sales would allow the applicant to mine high-quality limestone and dolomite to supply construction aggregate to the southern Las Vegas Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 1 would remove or destroy 6,100 cacti and yucca plants and result in impacts on special status plant species. Wildlife habitat in the 205-acre footprint of the mine would be permanently removed impacting special status species, including the desert tortoise. Recreational resources would be affected by removal of 640 acres that were previously available for dispersed recreation. An estimated 1,766 to 2,283 acre-feet of water would be needed over the life of the mine for each of the two sites. Deterioration of the surrounding roadway network due to project-related truck traffic would be significant and increased noise levels and changes to the visual character of the area could impact the experience of users of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and the North McCullough Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C 611 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110245, 518 pages, August 5, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Drilling KW - Limestone KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Surface Resources Act of 1955, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%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 - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 5, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696022; 15005-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of competitive mineral material sales for limestone and dolomite mining on two parcels of federal land in the Sloan Hills area of Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The Sloan Hills site contains geologic formations of calcium and magnesium carbonates (limestone and dolomite, respectively) that have been identified as suitable for the production of construction aggregate. The mining applicants, CEMEX (formerly Rinker Materials West, LLC) and Service Rock Products Corporation (SRP), selected the site because of the large volume of high-quality materials and its proximity to the area where construction materials would be needed most. CEMEX proposes to mine approximately 126 million tons of aggregate from the South site and SRP proposes to mine approximately 74 million tons of aggregate from the North site. Key issues identified during scoping relate to: air quality, noise, cultural resources, water supply, visual and lighting impacts, increased local traffic, vibrations from blasting, and property values. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 5), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the North and South sites would be auctioned as two separate parcels to two different mining companies. Alternative 2 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the North Site only, while Alternative 3 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the South Site only. The proposed North Site mine and associated facilities would be located within a 320-acre area in the south 1/2 of Section 29 of Township 23 South, Range 61 East. Once completed, the open pit mine would be approximately 143 acres in size. Ancillary facilities, include a crushing and screening plant, would be constructed on 46-acres in the northwest portion of the site, access roads and utility corridors would occur on approximately seven acres, and an unusable rock stockpile area would be located on 17 acres in the northeast portion of the site. The proposed South Site mine would be located on a 320-acre parcel adjacent to the proposed North Site mine and one mile southeast of the Sloan Road exit on Interstate 15. Facilities and operations would be similar to those proposed for the North Site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the sales would allow the applicant to mine high-quality limestone and dolomite to supply construction aggregate to the southern Las Vegas Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 1 would remove or destroy 6,100 cacti and yucca plants and result in impacts on special status plant species. Wildlife habitat in the 205-acre footprint of the mine would be permanently removed impacting special status species, including the desert tortoise. Recreational resources would be affected by removal of 640 acres that were previously available for dispersed recreation. An estimated 1,766 to 2,283 acre-feet of water would be needed over the life of the mine for each of the two sites. Deterioration of the surrounding roadway network due to project-related truck traffic would be significant and increased noise levels and changes to the visual character of the area could impact the experience of users of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and the North McCullough Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C 611 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110245, 518 pages, August 5, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Drilling KW - Limestone KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Surface Resources Act of 1955, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%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 - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 5, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696021; 15005-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of competitive mineral material sales for limestone and dolomite mining on two parcels of federal land in the Sloan Hills area of Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The Sloan Hills site contains geologic formations of calcium and magnesium carbonates (limestone and dolomite, respectively) that have been identified as suitable for the production of construction aggregate. The mining applicants, CEMEX (formerly Rinker Materials West, LLC) and Service Rock Products Corporation (SRP), selected the site because of the large volume of high-quality materials and its proximity to the area where construction materials would be needed most. CEMEX proposes to mine approximately 126 million tons of aggregate from the South site and SRP proposes to mine approximately 74 million tons of aggregate from the North site. Key issues identified during scoping relate to: air quality, noise, cultural resources, water supply, visual and lighting impacts, increased local traffic, vibrations from blasting, and property values. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 5), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the North and South sites would be auctioned as two separate parcels to two different mining companies. Alternative 2 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the North Site only, while Alternative 3 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the South Site only. The proposed North Site mine and associated facilities would be located within a 320-acre area in the south 1/2 of Section 29 of Township 23 South, Range 61 East. Once completed, the open pit mine would be approximately 143 acres in size. Ancillary facilities, include a crushing and screening plant, would be constructed on 46-acres in the northwest portion of the site, access roads and utility corridors would occur on approximately seven acres, and an unusable rock stockpile area would be located on 17 acres in the northeast portion of the site. The proposed South Site mine would be located on a 320-acre parcel adjacent to the proposed North Site mine and one mile southeast of the Sloan Road exit on Interstate 15. Facilities and operations would be similar to those proposed for the North Site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the sales would allow the applicant to mine high-quality limestone and dolomite to supply construction aggregate to the southern Las Vegas Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 1 would remove or destroy 6,100 cacti and yucca plants and result in impacts on special status plant species. Wildlife habitat in the 205-acre footprint of the mine would be permanently removed impacting special status species, including the desert tortoise. Recreational resources would be affected by removal of 640 acres that were previously available for dispersed recreation. An estimated 1,766 to 2,283 acre-feet of water would be needed over the life of the mine for each of the two sites. Deterioration of the surrounding roadway network due to project-related truck traffic would be significant and increased noise levels and changes to the visual character of the area could impact the experience of users of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and the North McCullough Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C 611 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110245, 518 pages, August 5, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Drilling KW - Limestone KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Surface Resources Act of 1955, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696021?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%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 - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 5, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696019; 15005-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of competitive mineral material sales for limestone and dolomite mining on two parcels of federal land in the Sloan Hills area of Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The Sloan Hills site contains geologic formations of calcium and magnesium carbonates (limestone and dolomite, respectively) that have been identified as suitable for the production of construction aggregate. The mining applicants, CEMEX (formerly Rinker Materials West, LLC) and Service Rock Products Corporation (SRP), selected the site because of the large volume of high-quality materials and its proximity to the area where construction materials would be needed most. CEMEX proposes to mine approximately 126 million tons of aggregate from the South site and SRP proposes to mine approximately 74 million tons of aggregate from the North site. Key issues identified during scoping relate to: air quality, noise, cultural resources, water supply, visual and lighting impacts, increased local traffic, vibrations from blasting, and property values. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 5), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the North and South sites would be auctioned as two separate parcels to two different mining companies. Alternative 2 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the North Site only, while Alternative 3 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the South Site only. The proposed North Site mine and associated facilities would be located within a 320-acre area in the south 1/2 of Section 29 of Township 23 South, Range 61 East. Once completed, the open pit mine would be approximately 143 acres in size. Ancillary facilities, include a crushing and screening plant, would be constructed on 46-acres in the northwest portion of the site, access roads and utility corridors would occur on approximately seven acres, and an unusable rock stockpile area would be located on 17 acres in the northeast portion of the site. The proposed South Site mine would be located on a 320-acre parcel adjacent to the proposed North Site mine and one mile southeast of the Sloan Road exit on Interstate 15. Facilities and operations would be similar to those proposed for the North Site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the sales would allow the applicant to mine high-quality limestone and dolomite to supply construction aggregate to the southern Las Vegas Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 1 would remove or destroy 6,100 cacti and yucca plants and result in impacts on special status plant species. Wildlife habitat in the 205-acre footprint of the mine would be permanently removed impacting special status species, including the desert tortoise. Recreational resources would be affected by removal of 640 acres that were previously available for dispersed recreation. An estimated 1,766 to 2,283 acre-feet of water would be needed over the life of the mine for each of the two sites. Deterioration of the surrounding roadway network due to project-related truck traffic would be significant and increased noise levels and changes to the visual character of the area could impact the experience of users of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and the North McCullough Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C 611 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110245, 518 pages, August 5, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Drilling KW - Limestone KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Surface Resources Act of 1955, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696019?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%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 - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 5, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16368520; 15005 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of competitive mineral material sales for limestone and dolomite mining on two parcels of federal land in the Sloan Hills area of Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The Sloan Hills site contains geologic formations of calcium and magnesium carbonates (limestone and dolomite, respectively) that have been identified as suitable for the production of construction aggregate. The mining applicants, CEMEX (formerly Rinker Materials West, LLC) and Service Rock Products Corporation (SRP), selected the site because of the large volume of high-quality materials and its proximity to the area where construction materials would be needed most. CEMEX proposes to mine approximately 126 million tons of aggregate from the South site and SRP proposes to mine approximately 74 million tons of aggregate from the North site. Key issues identified during scoping relate to: air quality, noise, cultural resources, water supply, visual and lighting impacts, increased local traffic, vibrations from blasting, and property values. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 5), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the North and South sites would be auctioned as two separate parcels to two different mining companies. Alternative 2 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the North Site only, while Alternative 3 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the South Site only. The proposed North Site mine and associated facilities would be located within a 320-acre area in the south 1/2 of Section 29 of Township 23 South, Range 61 East. Once completed, the open pit mine would be approximately 143 acres in size. Ancillary facilities, include a crushing and screening plant, would be constructed on 46-acres in the northwest portion of the site, access roads and utility corridors would occur on approximately seven acres, and an unusable rock stockpile area would be located on 17 acres in the northeast portion of the site. The proposed South Site mine would be located on a 320-acre parcel adjacent to the proposed North Site mine and one mile southeast of the Sloan Road exit on Interstate 15. Facilities and operations would be similar to those proposed for the North Site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the sales would allow the applicant to mine high-quality limestone and dolomite to supply construction aggregate to the southern Las Vegas Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 1 would remove or destroy 6,100 cacti and yucca plants and result in impacts on special status plant species. Wildlife habitat in the 205-acre footprint of the mine would be permanently removed impacting special status species, including the desert tortoise. Recreational resources would be affected by removal of 640 acres that were previously available for dispersed recreation. An estimated 1,766 to 2,283 acre-feet of water would be needed over the life of the mine for each of the two sites. Deterioration of the surrounding roadway network due to project-related truck traffic would be significant and increased noise levels and changes to the visual character of the area could impact the experience of users of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and the North McCullough Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C 611 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110245, 518 pages, August 5, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Drilling KW - Limestone KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Surface Resources Act of 1955, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16368520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%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 - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 5, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 41 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701294; 14999-9_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888701294?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 57 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701278; 14999-9_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888701278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Financial+Post&rft.issn=08388431&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 56 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701275; 14999-9_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888701275?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 35 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701059; 14999-9_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888701059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 34 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701055; 14999-9_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888701055?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 33 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701051; 14999-9_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888701051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 32 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701046; 14999-9_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888701046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 31 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701043; 14999-9_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888701043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 50 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888700989; 14999-9_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888700989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 49 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888700987; 14999-9_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888700987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 40 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888700982; 14999-9_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888700982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Financial+Times&rft.atitle=The+paradox+of+ownership%3A+New+research+examines+how+employee+share+schemes+affect+a+company%27s+performance%3A+%5BLondon+edition%5D&rft.au=Hunt%2C+John&rft.aulast=Hunt&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2002-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=14&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Financial+Times&rft.issn=03071766&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 39 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888700979; 14999-9_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888700979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. [Part 6 of 12] T2 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. AN - 888700483; 14998-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A plan is to guide and direct the management of wetlands and resident (non-migratory) Canada geese at Anacostia Park, Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Anacostia Park is a part of the National Capital Parks East unit and encompasses 1,300 acres along the banks of the Anacostia River in the District of Columbia and Maryland. This plan/EIS includes only those lands within the current National Park Service (NPS) jurisdiction of Anacostia Park. The NPS has been working in collaboration with stakeholders to restore nearly 100 acres of tidal wetlands along the Anacostia River, but over the past decade, a growing population of resident Canada geese has jeopardized the restoration efforts. A reduction in the abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation has already occurred. Wetland management includes the following elements: hydrology, vegetation, cultural/education, wetland restoration, and park operations. Goose management includes: lethal control (killing), habitat modification, scare and harassment, reproductive control, and cultural/education. Five alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would continue current wetland and goose management activities: invasive species management, trash management, public education, goose egg oiling, goose population monitoring, goose exclusion fencing, and wetland vegetation planting. Alternative B would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive goose management (lethal control to remove 40 to 60 percent of the resident population combined with other non-lethal techniques). Alternative B also considers new wetland restoration options. Alternative C would combine the second most aggressive set of wetlands management options with a moderate level of lethal and non-lethal goose management techniques. This alternative assumes that more intensive wetland management would be needed to counteract the resident goose population that would remain in the area. Alternative D includes a plan for low wetlands management and low goose management combining less aggressive wetlands management options with lethal goose management one time during the planning period and only as a last resort. Alternative E would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive non-lethal goose management techniques (no lethal controls). This alternative considers new wetland restoration options as well. Adaptive management would guide the implementation of the selected alternative. The costs of implementing alternatives B, C, D and E are estimated at: $16.4 million, $10.4 million, $5.6 million, and $16.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would facilitate the success and functionality of current and future wetland restoration activities. Management of the Canada geese population would reduce adverse effects of resident goose grazing pressure on restored wetlands to ensure plant regeneration sufficient to reach the desired condition of a functional wetland system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative B, which would provide the highest level of wetlands and goose management, impacts to the population of Canada geese would be perceptible at the Maryland or District of Columbia resident Canada goose population level, but not at the Atlantic Flyway population levels. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110238, 408 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Erosion Control KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Anacostia Park KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888700483?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.title=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. [Part 5 of 12] T2 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. AN - 888700480; 14998-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A plan is to guide and direct the management of wetlands and resident (non-migratory) Canada geese at Anacostia Park, Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Anacostia Park is a part of the National Capital Parks East unit and encompasses 1,300 acres along the banks of the Anacostia River in the District of Columbia and Maryland. This plan/EIS includes only those lands within the current National Park Service (NPS) jurisdiction of Anacostia Park. The NPS has been working in collaboration with stakeholders to restore nearly 100 acres of tidal wetlands along the Anacostia River, but over the past decade, a growing population of resident Canada geese has jeopardized the restoration efforts. A reduction in the abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation has already occurred. Wetland management includes the following elements: hydrology, vegetation, cultural/education, wetland restoration, and park operations. Goose management includes: lethal control (killing), habitat modification, scare and harassment, reproductive control, and cultural/education. Five alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would continue current wetland and goose management activities: invasive species management, trash management, public education, goose egg oiling, goose population monitoring, goose exclusion fencing, and wetland vegetation planting. Alternative B would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive goose management (lethal control to remove 40 to 60 percent of the resident population combined with other non-lethal techniques). Alternative B also considers new wetland restoration options. Alternative C would combine the second most aggressive set of wetlands management options with a moderate level of lethal and non-lethal goose management techniques. This alternative assumes that more intensive wetland management would be needed to counteract the resident goose population that would remain in the area. Alternative D includes a plan for low wetlands management and low goose management combining less aggressive wetlands management options with lethal goose management one time during the planning period and only as a last resort. Alternative E would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive non-lethal goose management techniques (no lethal controls). This alternative considers new wetland restoration options as well. Adaptive management would guide the implementation of the selected alternative. The costs of implementing alternatives B, C, D and E are estimated at: $16.4 million, $10.4 million, $5.6 million, and $16.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would facilitate the success and functionality of current and future wetland restoration activities. Management of the Canada geese population would reduce adverse effects of resident goose grazing pressure on restored wetlands to ensure plant regeneration sufficient to reach the desired condition of a functional wetland system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative B, which would provide the highest level of wetlands and goose management, impacts to the population of Canada geese would be perceptible at the Maryland or District of Columbia resident Canada goose population level, but not at the Atlantic Flyway population levels. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110238, 408 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Erosion Control KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Anacostia Park KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888700480?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.title=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. [Part 4 of 12] T2 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. AN - 888700476; 14998-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A plan is to guide and direct the management of wetlands and resident (non-migratory) Canada geese at Anacostia Park, Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Anacostia Park is a part of the National Capital Parks East unit and encompasses 1,300 acres along the banks of the Anacostia River in the District of Columbia and Maryland. This plan/EIS includes only those lands within the current National Park Service (NPS) jurisdiction of Anacostia Park. The NPS has been working in collaboration with stakeholders to restore nearly 100 acres of tidal wetlands along the Anacostia River, but over the past decade, a growing population of resident Canada geese has jeopardized the restoration efforts. A reduction in the abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation has already occurred. Wetland management includes the following elements: hydrology, vegetation, cultural/education, wetland restoration, and park operations. Goose management includes: lethal control (killing), habitat modification, scare and harassment, reproductive control, and cultural/education. Five alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would continue current wetland and goose management activities: invasive species management, trash management, public education, goose egg oiling, goose population monitoring, goose exclusion fencing, and wetland vegetation planting. Alternative B would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive goose management (lethal control to remove 40 to 60 percent of the resident population combined with other non-lethal techniques). Alternative B also considers new wetland restoration options. Alternative C would combine the second most aggressive set of wetlands management options with a moderate level of lethal and non-lethal goose management techniques. This alternative assumes that more intensive wetland management would be needed to counteract the resident goose population that would remain in the area. Alternative D includes a plan for low wetlands management and low goose management combining less aggressive wetlands management options with lethal goose management one time during the planning period and only as a last resort. Alternative E would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive non-lethal goose management techniques (no lethal controls). This alternative considers new wetland restoration options as well. Adaptive management would guide the implementation of the selected alternative. The costs of implementing alternatives B, C, D and E are estimated at: $16.4 million, $10.4 million, $5.6 million, and $16.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would facilitate the success and functionality of current and future wetland restoration activities. Management of the Canada geese population would reduce adverse effects of resident goose grazing pressure on restored wetlands to ensure plant regeneration sufficient to reach the desired condition of a functional wetland system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative B, which would provide the highest level of wetlands and goose management, impacts to the population of Canada geese would be perceptible at the Maryland or District of Columbia resident Canada goose population level, but not at the Atlantic Flyway population levels. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110238, 408 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Erosion Control KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Anacostia Park KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888700476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.title=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. [Part 3 of 12] T2 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. AN - 888700473; 14998-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A plan is to guide and direct the management of wetlands and resident (non-migratory) Canada geese at Anacostia Park, Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Anacostia Park is a part of the National Capital Parks East unit and encompasses 1,300 acres along the banks of the Anacostia River in the District of Columbia and Maryland. This plan/EIS includes only those lands within the current National Park Service (NPS) jurisdiction of Anacostia Park. The NPS has been working in collaboration with stakeholders to restore nearly 100 acres of tidal wetlands along the Anacostia River, but over the past decade, a growing population of resident Canada geese has jeopardized the restoration efforts. A reduction in the abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation has already occurred. Wetland management includes the following elements: hydrology, vegetation, cultural/education, wetland restoration, and park operations. Goose management includes: lethal control (killing), habitat modification, scare and harassment, reproductive control, and cultural/education. Five alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would continue current wetland and goose management activities: invasive species management, trash management, public education, goose egg oiling, goose population monitoring, goose exclusion fencing, and wetland vegetation planting. Alternative B would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive goose management (lethal control to remove 40 to 60 percent of the resident population combined with other non-lethal techniques). Alternative B also considers new wetland restoration options. Alternative C would combine the second most aggressive set of wetlands management options with a moderate level of lethal and non-lethal goose management techniques. This alternative assumes that more intensive wetland management would be needed to counteract the resident goose population that would remain in the area. Alternative D includes a plan for low wetlands management and low goose management combining less aggressive wetlands management options with lethal goose management one time during the planning period and only as a last resort. Alternative E would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive non-lethal goose management techniques (no lethal controls). This alternative considers new wetland restoration options as well. Adaptive management would guide the implementation of the selected alternative. The costs of implementing alternatives B, C, D and E are estimated at: $16.4 million, $10.4 million, $5.6 million, and $16.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would facilitate the success and functionality of current and future wetland restoration activities. Management of the Canada geese population would reduce adverse effects of resident goose grazing pressure on restored wetlands to ensure plant regeneration sufficient to reach the desired condition of a functional wetland system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative B, which would provide the highest level of wetlands and goose management, impacts to the population of Canada geese would be perceptible at the Maryland or District of Columbia resident Canada goose population level, but not at the Atlantic Flyway population levels. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110238, 408 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Erosion Control KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Anacostia Park KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888700473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.title=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 12] T2 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. AN - 888700468; 14998-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A plan is to guide and direct the management of wetlands and resident (non-migratory) Canada geese at Anacostia Park, Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Anacostia Park is a part of the National Capital Parks East unit and encompasses 1,300 acres along the banks of the Anacostia River in the District of Columbia and Maryland. This plan/EIS includes only those lands within the current National Park Service (NPS) jurisdiction of Anacostia Park. The NPS has been working in collaboration with stakeholders to restore nearly 100 acres of tidal wetlands along the Anacostia River, but over the past decade, a growing population of resident Canada geese has jeopardized the restoration efforts. A reduction in the abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation has already occurred. Wetland management includes the following elements: hydrology, vegetation, cultural/education, wetland restoration, and park operations. Goose management includes: lethal control (killing), habitat modification, scare and harassment, reproductive control, and cultural/education. Five alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would continue current wetland and goose management activities: invasive species management, trash management, public education, goose egg oiling, goose population monitoring, goose exclusion fencing, and wetland vegetation planting. Alternative B would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive goose management (lethal control to remove 40 to 60 percent of the resident population combined with other non-lethal techniques). Alternative B also considers new wetland restoration options. Alternative C would combine the second most aggressive set of wetlands management options with a moderate level of lethal and non-lethal goose management techniques. This alternative assumes that more intensive wetland management would be needed to counteract the resident goose population that would remain in the area. Alternative D includes a plan for low wetlands management and low goose management combining less aggressive wetlands management options with lethal goose management one time during the planning period and only as a last resort. Alternative E would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive non-lethal goose management techniques (no lethal controls). This alternative considers new wetland restoration options as well. Adaptive management would guide the implementation of the selected alternative. The costs of implementing alternatives B, C, D and E are estimated at: $16.4 million, $10.4 million, $5.6 million, and $16.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would facilitate the success and functionality of current and future wetland restoration activities. Management of the Canada geese population would reduce adverse effects of resident goose grazing pressure on restored wetlands to ensure plant regeneration sufficient to reach the desired condition of a functional wetland system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative B, which would provide the highest level of wetlands and goose management, impacts to the population of Canada geese would be perceptible at the Maryland or District of Columbia resident Canada goose population level, but not at the Atlantic Flyway population levels. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110238, 408 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Erosion Control KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Anacostia Park KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888700468?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.title=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 12] T2 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. AN - 888700464; 14998-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A plan is to guide and direct the management of wetlands and resident (non-migratory) Canada geese at Anacostia Park, Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Anacostia Park is a part of the National Capital Parks East unit and encompasses 1,300 acres along the banks of the Anacostia River in the District of Columbia and Maryland. This plan/EIS includes only those lands within the current National Park Service (NPS) jurisdiction of Anacostia Park. The NPS has been working in collaboration with stakeholders to restore nearly 100 acres of tidal wetlands along the Anacostia River, but over the past decade, a growing population of resident Canada geese has jeopardized the restoration efforts. A reduction in the abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation has already occurred. Wetland management includes the following elements: hydrology, vegetation, cultural/education, wetland restoration, and park operations. Goose management includes: lethal control (killing), habitat modification, scare and harassment, reproductive control, and cultural/education. Five alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would continue current wetland and goose management activities: invasive species management, trash management, public education, goose egg oiling, goose population monitoring, goose exclusion fencing, and wetland vegetation planting. Alternative B would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive goose management (lethal control to remove 40 to 60 percent of the resident population combined with other non-lethal techniques). Alternative B also considers new wetland restoration options. Alternative C would combine the second most aggressive set of wetlands management options with a moderate level of lethal and non-lethal goose management techniques. This alternative assumes that more intensive wetland management would be needed to counteract the resident goose population that would remain in the area. Alternative D includes a plan for low wetlands management and low goose management combining less aggressive wetlands management options with lethal goose management one time during the planning period and only as a last resort. Alternative E would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive non-lethal goose management techniques (no lethal controls). This alternative considers new wetland restoration options as well. Adaptive management would guide the implementation of the selected alternative. The costs of implementing alternatives B, C, D and E are estimated at: $16.4 million, $10.4 million, $5.6 million, and $16.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would facilitate the success and functionality of current and future wetland restoration activities. Management of the Canada geese population would reduce adverse effects of resident goose grazing pressure on restored wetlands to ensure plant regeneration sufficient to reach the desired condition of a functional wetland system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative B, which would provide the highest level of wetlands and goose management, impacts to the population of Canada geese would be perceptible at the Maryland or District of Columbia resident Canada goose population level, but not at the Atlantic Flyway population levels. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110238, 408 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Erosion Control KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Anacostia Park KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888700464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.title=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 54 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888700106; 14999-9_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888700106?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 53 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888700091; 14999-9_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888700091?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 30 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698237; 14999-9_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698237?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 29 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698231; 14999-9_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 28 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698226; 14999-9_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698226?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 27 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698225; 14999-9_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 26 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698224; 14999-9_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698224?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 25 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698223; 14999-9_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698223?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 24 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698222; 14999-9_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 23 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698221; 14999-9_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698221?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 22 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698220; 14999-9_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 21 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698215; 14999-9_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698215?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 20 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698211; 14999-9_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698211?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 16 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698206; 14999-9_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698206?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 15 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698199; 14999-9_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698199?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 12 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698196; 14999-9_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 11 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698193; 14999-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 10 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698190; 14999-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698190?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 9 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698189; 14999-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 8 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698188; 14999-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698188?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 38 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698070; 14999-9_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 61 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698068; 14999-9_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 37 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698067; 14999-9_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 36 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698066; 14999-9_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888698066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 27 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888698001; 15001-1_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 44 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888697990; 14999-9_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888697990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 43 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888697985; 14999-9_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888697985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 42 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888697982; 14999-9_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888697982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 26 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696926; 15001-1_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696926?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 25 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696921; 15001-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696921?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 24 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696915; 15001-1_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 23 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696908; 15001-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696908?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 22 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696901; 15001-1_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 21 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696896; 15001-1_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 20 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696887; 15001-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 19 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696880; 15001-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 18 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696872; 15001-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 17 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696862; 15001-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696862?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 16 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696859; 15001-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696859?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 15 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696855; 15001-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696855?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 14 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696849; 15001-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696849?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 13 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696841; 15001-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 11 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696833; 15001-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696833?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 10 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696827; 15001-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 9 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696819; 15001-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 8 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696815; 15001-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696815?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 6 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696798; 15001-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 5 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696790; 15001-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696790?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 58 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696788; 14999-9_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 4 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696785; 15001-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696785?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 3 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696773; 15001-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 2 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696766; 15001-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696766?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. [Part 1 of 28] T2 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 888696756; 15001-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, 59 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located on 78 acres 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide draft EIS. Impacts of other DOE programs and those of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, that occur or are proposed to occur on these NNSA-managed sites are also analyzed. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. Such expanded operations could include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under each alternative. A geothermal energy demonstration project and research center would be included under the Expanded Operations Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, or Reduced Operations alternatives, solar power generation facilities would disturb 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Implementing any alternative would result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport and solar power generation facilities would have an adverse visual impact. The geothermal project could also alter visual character and reduce visual quality if its facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 110241, Summary--112 pages, Draft EIS--695 pages, Appendices--436 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Disposal KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696756?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLICKITAT HATCHERY COMPLEX PROGRAM, KLICKITAT AND YAKIMA COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - KLICKITAT HATCHERY COMPLEX PROGRAM, KLICKITAT AND YAKIMA COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 888696748; 14995-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is proposing to fund the Yakama Nation's Klickitat Hatchery Complex Program, located in Klickitat and Yakima counties, Washington. The intent of the proposed changes to the salmon and steelhead hatchery programs in the Klickitat subbasin is to increase the abundance of spring Chinook and steelhead natural spawning, decrease impacts of the non-native fall Chinook and coho programs, and increase harvest opportunities for Yakama Nation tribal members and others. These changes would result in modification of the Klickitat Hatchery, located seven miles east of Glenwood, Washington at river mile 42.5 of the Klickitat River. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are evaluated in this draft EIS. The Full Master Plan Buildout Alternative (Alternative 1) would include modifications to the Klickitat Hatchery, a new hatchery and acclimation facility at the Wahkiacus site located at river mile 17 on the Klickitat River, and an acclimation facility at McCreedy Creek at river mile 70, should it be deemed necessary. The Wahkiacus facility would include a new hatchery building, a maintenance building, a number of raceways, and other buildings and facilities related to fish production. The integrated hatchery/harvest program for spring Chinook would involve replacement of existing broodstock with natural-origin adults collected at Lyle Falls Fishway and Castile Falls. At the Klickitat Hatchery, 800,000 spring Chinook would be incubated, reared, and released as smolts. Summer steelhead production would initially be designed as a segregated harvest program. Approximately 130,000 juveniles would be released from the Klickitat Hatchery for the harvest component. Alternative 2 would also establish a local broodstock segregated hatchery program for coho and a segregated hatchery/harvest program for fall Chinook. Under the Klickitat Hatchery Buildout Alternative (Alternative 3), hatchery production would be managed at a modified Klickitat Hatchery and no new facilities would be constructed at Wahkiacus. Both build alternatives incorporate adaptive management strategies, remote and mobile acclimation facilities, and climate change adaptations. The primary adaptive management strategy relates to summer steelhead conservation and the recolonization of upstream reaches. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support BPAs efforts to further mitigate the adverse effects of the Federal Columbia River Power System on salmonids generally, and fish in the Klickitat River subbasin particularly. The increased numbers of harvestable fish in the subbasin would benefit Yakama Nation tribal members and others who fish for salmon and steelhead. By reducing the numbers of smolts of introduced species (coho salmon) released into the subbasin and applying the most current findings regarding acclimation and integrated hatchery reform, the Klickitat Hatchery Complex Program is endeavoring to achieve self-sustaining native fish populations in the Klickitat River Subbasin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative 2, a total of 33.2 acres of soil would be disturbed at the Wahkiacus, Klickitat Hatchery, and McCreedy Creek sites. Alternative 3 would alter 21.5 acres at the Klickitat Hatchery and McCreedy Creek sites. Ground disturbing activities would increase erosion and sediment run-off to the Klickitat River, Swale Creek, and McCreedy Creek in the short term. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in loss of 5.9 acres and 3.7 acres of wildlife habitat, respectively. The renovation of the existing historic Klickitat Hatchery and demolition of three existing historic residences would have an adverse effect on structures potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 839 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110235, 362 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DOE/EA-0424 KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Fish KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Historic Sites KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife KW - Klickitat River KW - Washington KW - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696748?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLICKITAT+HATCHERY+COMPLEX+PROGRAM%2C+KLICKITAT+AND+YAKIMA+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=KLICKITAT+HATCHERY+COMPLEX+PROGRAM%2C+KLICKITAT+AND+YAKIMA+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCKSKIN MINE HAY CREEK II COAL LEASE APPLICATION, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING (FEDERAL COAL LEASE APPLICATION WYW-172684). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - BUCKSKIN MINE HAY CREEK II COAL LEASE APPLICATION, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING (FEDERAL COAL LEASE APPLICATION WYW-172684). AN - 888696737; 14997-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing of a contiguous block of federal coal reserves adjacent to the existing Buckskin Mine located 12 miles north of Gillette in Campbell County, Wyoming is proposed. The Hay Creek II tract encompasses 419 surface acres and includes approximately 77.2 million tons of in-place coal reserves. Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. filed an application to lease the recoverable federal coal as a maintenance tract that can be recovered by an active coal mine. Key issues identified during scoping include potential conflicts between existing and proposed oil and gas development, impacts to big game herds and hunting, impacts to sage-grouse and listed species, potential health impacts related to blasting, cumulative impacts of coal leasing decisions on the Powder River Basin, and impacts on air and water quality. Three alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the coal lease application would be rejected and the existing leases at the Buckskin Mine would be developed according to the current approved mining plan. Under the proposed action, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would hold a competitive, sealed-bid sale and issue a lease for the 77.2 million tons of federal coal reserves. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, the BLM would hold a competitive, sealed-bid sale and issue a lease for the federal coal reserves included in an alternative tract configuration that could include all or part of the proposed tract and additional reserves within a study area encompassing 1,883 acres and 269.7 million tons of in-place coal reserves. No new life-of-mine facilities would be built under any of the alternatives; coal reserves would be mined as an extension of the existing mine. The potential additional federal revenue from the general analysis area is estimated at $69 to $241 million. The potential additional revenue to the state of Wyoming from the general analysis area is estimated at $91 to $300 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The maintenance tract lease would extend the life of the mine for two to six years and generate significant revenue for the federal government and the state of Wyoming. Approximately 54 million tons of coal would be recovered from the proposed tract, and up to 149.7 million tons from the BLM study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, surface mining would affect 2,847 acres of soil resources. The topography of the area would be permanently changed with reclaimed lands approximately 60 feet lower than today. Moderately adverse impacts on air quality would continue for two to six years. Mining would cause a long-term reduction in groundwater in aquifers beyond the final tract configuration as a result of seepage and dewatering. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0064D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110237, 827 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/045+1320 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coal KW - Leasing KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCKSKIN+MINE+HAY+CREEK+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW-172684%29.&rft.title=BUCKSKIN+MINE+HAY+CREEK+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW-172684%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Casper, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 46 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696468; 14999-9_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696468?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 45 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696459; 14999-9_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Personality+and+Individual+Differences&rft.atitle=Interaction+between+implicit+aggression+and+dispositional+self-control+in+explaining+counterproductive+work+behaviors&rft.au=Gali%C4%87%2C+Zvonimir%3BRu%C5%BEoj%C4%8Di%C4%87%2C+Mitja&rft.aulast=Gali%C4%87&rft.aufirst=Zvonimir&rft.date=2017-01-01&rft.volume=104&rft.issue=&rft.spage=111&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Personality+and+Individual+Differences&rft.issn=01918869&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.paid.2016.07.046 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 7 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696163; 14999-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2016-11-01&rft.volume=87&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1856&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Child+Development&rft.issn=00093920&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fcdev.12557 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 52 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696138; 14999-9_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Thinking+%26+Reasoning&rft.atitle=%22Deductive+and+inductive+conditional+inferences%3A+Two+modes+of+reasoning%22%3A+Corrigendum&rft.au=Singmann%2C+Henrik%3BKlauer%2C+Karl+Christoph&rft.aulast=Singmann&rft.aufirst=Henrik&rft.date=2016-10-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=495&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Thinking+%26+Reasoning&rft.issn=13546783&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F13546783.2016.1196525 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 51 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696134; 14999-9_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 55 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696131; 14999-9_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696131?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 48 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696126; 14999-9_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 47 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696123; 14999-9_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 16 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888696121; 15002-2_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696121?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 15 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888696119; 15002-2_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 14 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888696118; 15002-2_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696118?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 10 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888696113; 15002-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 6 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696111; 14999-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 9 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888696109; 15002-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696109?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=PLoS+ONE&rft.atitle=Counterfactual+reasoning+deficits+in+schizophrenia+patients&rft.au=Contreras%2C+Fernando%3BAlbacete%2C+Auria%3BCastellv%C3%AD%2C+Pere%3BCa%C3%B1o%2C+Agn%C3%A8s%3BBenejam%2C+Bessy%3BMench%C3%B3n%2C+Jos%C3%A9+Manuel&rft.aulast=Contreras&rft.aufirst=Fernando&rft.date=2016-02-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=PLoS+ONE&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 5 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696108; 14999-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696108?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 4 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696055; 14999-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696055?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 14 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696052; 14999-9_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 3 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696049; 14999-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 13 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696048; 14999-9_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 13 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888696044; 15002-2_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696044?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Journal+of+Applied+Psychology&rft.atitle=An+item+analysis+of+the+Conditional+Reasoning+Test+of+Aggression&rft.au=DeSimone%2C+Justin+A.%3BJames%2C+Lawrence+R.&rft.aulast=DeSimone&rft.aufirst=Justin&rft.date=2015-11-01&rft.volume=100&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1872&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Applied+Psychology&rft.issn=00219010&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037%2Fapl0000026 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 12 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888696043; 15002-2_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 11 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888696042; 15002-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 8 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888696040; 15002-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Frontiers+in+Psychology&rft.atitle=%22Bayesian+reasoning+with+ifs+and+ands+and+ors%22%3A+Corrigendum&rft.au=Cruz%2C+Nicole%3BBaratgin%2C+Jean%3BOaksford%2C+Mike%3BOver%2C+David+E.&rft.aulast=Cruz&rft.aufirst=Nicole&rft.date=2015-05-27&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Frontiers+in+Psychology&rft.issn=1664-1078&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 7 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888696039; 15002-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 6 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888696038; 15002-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696038?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 5 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888696037; 15002-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888696035; 15002-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Topics+in+Cognitive+Science&rft.atitle=Logic+as+Marr%27s+computational+level%3A+Four+case+studies&rft.au=Baggio%2C+Giosu%C3%A8%3BLambalgen%2C+Michiel%3BHagoort%2C+Peter&rft.aulast=Baggio&rft.aufirst=Giosu%C3%A8&rft.date=2015-04-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=287&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Topics+in+Cognitive+Science&rft.issn=17568757&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Ftops.12125 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888696033; 15002-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888696030; 15002-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696030?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Frontiers+in+Psychology&rft.atitle=Bayesian+reasoning+with+ifs+and+ands+and+ors&rft.au=Cruz%2C+Nicole%3BBaratgin%2C+Jean%3BOaksford%2C+Mike%3BOver%2C+David+E.&rft.aulast=Cruz&rft.aufirst=Nicole&rft.date=2015-02-25&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Frontiers+in+Psychology&rft.issn=1664-1078&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 888696015; 15000-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing vehicle use for the next 15 to 20 years along the 92-mile-long Park Road at Denali National Park and Preserve in Alaska are proposed. The Denali Park Road is the only road that winds into the six-million-acre wilderness landscape. The present approach for managing vehicles is based on the parks 1986 General Management Plan, which established an allowable seasonal limit of 10,512 vehicles on the Park Road past Mile 15 from approximately Memorial Day to a week after Labor Day. With visitation steadily growing, the park is approaching the core season vehicle limit. Whereas the vehicle limit is clearly measureable, it is less clear that a numerical limit alone is enough to adequately protect park resources and provide for a high quality visitor experience. Other factors to be considered include: visitor perceptions of crowding at wildlife stops and rest stops; interactions between busses and wildlife; and wildlife movements in the Park Road corridor. Three management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) that would continue current management, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative B would optimize access by promoting maximized seating on all transit and tour vehicles to offer the largest number of visitors the opportunity to travel the Park Road. Alternative C would maximize visitor opportunities by promoting a variety of opportunities that range from brief experiences in the parks entrance area, to short and long visits along segments of the Park Road, to multiday experiences in the backcountry. Both action alternatives propose to manage for desired resource and visitor use conditions using the same indicators and standards. For the restricted section of the Park Road, which extends from Savage River to Wonder Lake, the following indicators would be monitored annually: sheep gap spacing, night time traffic levels, large vehicles, vehicles at a wildlife stop, vehicles in a viewscape, and wait time for hiker vehicles at rest areas and the Eielson visitor center. Under Alternative C, a new management subzone would be created west of Eielson Visitor Center to Wonder Lake. This section would be managed for the lowest traffic volume on the Park Road and significant growth beyond the current condition would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would guide management to provide a high quality experience for visitors; protect wilderness resources and values, scenic values, wildlife, and other park resources; and maintain the unique character of the Park Road. Under both action alternatives, vehicle use would be adaptively managed to achieve specific desired conditions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The wilderness character of the park may be affected by the volume, timing, and types of vehicle use. Dall sheep, grizzly bear, caribou, moose, gray wolf other wildlife species and habitat could be impacted. Changes to administrative use of the road, monitoring of indicators and standards, and changes to education/interpretation would affect park operations, management and costs. The social and economic conditions of the local gateway and regional communities could be influenced. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), 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: 110240, 334 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance 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/888696015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denali Park, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 19 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696012; 14999-9_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 18 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696011; 14999-9_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 17 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696008; 14999-9_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888696008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 23 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888695993; 15002-2_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695993?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 22 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888695992; 15002-2_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 21 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888695991; 15002-2_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 20 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888695990; 15002-2_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 19 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888695989; 15002-2_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 18 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888695987; 15002-2_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 17 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888695984; 15002-2_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695984?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 888695983; 15002-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. [Part 12 of 12] T2 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. AN - 888695981; 14998-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: A plan is to guide and direct the management of wetlands and resident (non-migratory) Canada geese at Anacostia Park, Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Anacostia Park is a part of the National Capital Parks East unit and encompasses 1,300 acres along the banks of the Anacostia River in the District of Columbia and Maryland. This plan/EIS includes only those lands within the current National Park Service (NPS) jurisdiction of Anacostia Park. The NPS has been working in collaboration with stakeholders to restore nearly 100 acres of tidal wetlands along the Anacostia River, but over the past decade, a growing population of resident Canada geese has jeopardized the restoration efforts. A reduction in the abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation has already occurred. Wetland management includes the following elements: hydrology, vegetation, cultural/education, wetland restoration, and park operations. Goose management includes: lethal control (killing), habitat modification, scare and harassment, reproductive control, and cultural/education. Five alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would continue current wetland and goose management activities: invasive species management, trash management, public education, goose egg oiling, goose population monitoring, goose exclusion fencing, and wetland vegetation planting. Alternative B would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive goose management (lethal control to remove 40 to 60 percent of the resident population combined with other non-lethal techniques). Alternative B also considers new wetland restoration options. Alternative C would combine the second most aggressive set of wetlands management options with a moderate level of lethal and non-lethal goose management techniques. This alternative assumes that more intensive wetland management would be needed to counteract the resident goose population that would remain in the area. Alternative D includes a plan for low wetlands management and low goose management combining less aggressive wetlands management options with lethal goose management one time during the planning period and only as a last resort. Alternative E would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive non-lethal goose management techniques (no lethal controls). This alternative considers new wetland restoration options as well. Adaptive management would guide the implementation of the selected alternative. The costs of implementing alternatives B, C, D and E are estimated at: $16.4 million, $10.4 million, $5.6 million, and $16.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would facilitate the success and functionality of current and future wetland restoration activities. Management of the Canada geese population would reduce adverse effects of resident goose grazing pressure on restored wetlands to ensure plant regeneration sufficient to reach the desired condition of a functional wetland system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative B, which would provide the highest level of wetlands and goose management, impacts to the population of Canada geese would be perceptible at the Maryland or District of Columbia resident Canada goose population level, but not at the Atlantic Flyway population levels. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110238, 408 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Erosion Control KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Anacostia Park KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695981?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.title=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. [Part 11 of 12] T2 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. AN - 888695979; 14998-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: A plan is to guide and direct the management of wetlands and resident (non-migratory) Canada geese at Anacostia Park, Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Anacostia Park is a part of the National Capital Parks East unit and encompasses 1,300 acres along the banks of the Anacostia River in the District of Columbia and Maryland. This plan/EIS includes only those lands within the current National Park Service (NPS) jurisdiction of Anacostia Park. The NPS has been working in collaboration with stakeholders to restore nearly 100 acres of tidal wetlands along the Anacostia River, but over the past decade, a growing population of resident Canada geese has jeopardized the restoration efforts. A reduction in the abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation has already occurred. Wetland management includes the following elements: hydrology, vegetation, cultural/education, wetland restoration, and park operations. Goose management includes: lethal control (killing), habitat modification, scare and harassment, reproductive control, and cultural/education. Five alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would continue current wetland and goose management activities: invasive species management, trash management, public education, goose egg oiling, goose population monitoring, goose exclusion fencing, and wetland vegetation planting. Alternative B would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive goose management (lethal control to remove 40 to 60 percent of the resident population combined with other non-lethal techniques). Alternative B also considers new wetland restoration options. Alternative C would combine the second most aggressive set of wetlands management options with a moderate level of lethal and non-lethal goose management techniques. This alternative assumes that more intensive wetland management would be needed to counteract the resident goose population that would remain in the area. Alternative D includes a plan for low wetlands management and low goose management combining less aggressive wetlands management options with lethal goose management one time during the planning period and only as a last resort. Alternative E would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive non-lethal goose management techniques (no lethal controls). This alternative considers new wetland restoration options as well. Adaptive management would guide the implementation of the selected alternative. The costs of implementing alternatives B, C, D and E are estimated at: $16.4 million, $10.4 million, $5.6 million, and $16.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would facilitate the success and functionality of current and future wetland restoration activities. Management of the Canada geese population would reduce adverse effects of resident goose grazing pressure on restored wetlands to ensure plant regeneration sufficient to reach the desired condition of a functional wetland system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative B, which would provide the highest level of wetlands and goose management, impacts to the population of Canada geese would be perceptible at the Maryland or District of Columbia resident Canada goose population level, but not at the Atlantic Flyway population levels. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110238, 408 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Erosion Control KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Anacostia Park KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.title=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. [Part 10 of 12] T2 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. AN - 888695975; 14998-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: A plan is to guide and direct the management of wetlands and resident (non-migratory) Canada geese at Anacostia Park, Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Anacostia Park is a part of the National Capital Parks East unit and encompasses 1,300 acres along the banks of the Anacostia River in the District of Columbia and Maryland. This plan/EIS includes only those lands within the current National Park Service (NPS) jurisdiction of Anacostia Park. The NPS has been working in collaboration with stakeholders to restore nearly 100 acres of tidal wetlands along the Anacostia River, but over the past decade, a growing population of resident Canada geese has jeopardized the restoration efforts. A reduction in the abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation has already occurred. Wetland management includes the following elements: hydrology, vegetation, cultural/education, wetland restoration, and park operations. Goose management includes: lethal control (killing), habitat modification, scare and harassment, reproductive control, and cultural/education. Five alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would continue current wetland and goose management activities: invasive species management, trash management, public education, goose egg oiling, goose population monitoring, goose exclusion fencing, and wetland vegetation planting. Alternative B would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive goose management (lethal control to remove 40 to 60 percent of the resident population combined with other non-lethal techniques). Alternative B also considers new wetland restoration options. Alternative C would combine the second most aggressive set of wetlands management options with a moderate level of lethal and non-lethal goose management techniques. This alternative assumes that more intensive wetland management would be needed to counteract the resident goose population that would remain in the area. Alternative D includes a plan for low wetlands management and low goose management combining less aggressive wetlands management options with lethal goose management one time during the planning period and only as a last resort. Alternative E would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive non-lethal goose management techniques (no lethal controls). This alternative considers new wetland restoration options as well. Adaptive management would guide the implementation of the selected alternative. The costs of implementing alternatives B, C, D and E are estimated at: $16.4 million, $10.4 million, $5.6 million, and $16.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would facilitate the success and functionality of current and future wetland restoration activities. Management of the Canada geese population would reduce adverse effects of resident goose grazing pressure on restored wetlands to ensure plant regeneration sufficient to reach the desired condition of a functional wetland system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative B, which would provide the highest level of wetlands and goose management, impacts to the population of Canada geese would be perceptible at the Maryland or District of Columbia resident Canada goose population level, but not at the Atlantic Flyway population levels. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110238, 408 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Erosion Control KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Anacostia Park KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695975?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.title=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 2 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888695819; 14999-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888695819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 1 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888695815; 14999-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888695815?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. [Part 9 of 12] T2 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. AN - 888695773; 14998-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: A plan is to guide and direct the management of wetlands and resident (non-migratory) Canada geese at Anacostia Park, Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Anacostia Park is a part of the National Capital Parks East unit and encompasses 1,300 acres along the banks of the Anacostia River in the District of Columbia and Maryland. This plan/EIS includes only those lands within the current National Park Service (NPS) jurisdiction of Anacostia Park. The NPS has been working in collaboration with stakeholders to restore nearly 100 acres of tidal wetlands along the Anacostia River, but over the past decade, a growing population of resident Canada geese has jeopardized the restoration efforts. A reduction in the abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation has already occurred. Wetland management includes the following elements: hydrology, vegetation, cultural/education, wetland restoration, and park operations. Goose management includes: lethal control (killing), habitat modification, scare and harassment, reproductive control, and cultural/education. Five alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would continue current wetland and goose management activities: invasive species management, trash management, public education, goose egg oiling, goose population monitoring, goose exclusion fencing, and wetland vegetation planting. Alternative B would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive goose management (lethal control to remove 40 to 60 percent of the resident population combined with other non-lethal techniques). Alternative B also considers new wetland restoration options. Alternative C would combine the second most aggressive set of wetlands management options with a moderate level of lethal and non-lethal goose management techniques. This alternative assumes that more intensive wetland management would be needed to counteract the resident goose population that would remain in the area. Alternative D includes a plan for low wetlands management and low goose management combining less aggressive wetlands management options with lethal goose management one time during the planning period and only as a last resort. Alternative E would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive non-lethal goose management techniques (no lethal controls). This alternative considers new wetland restoration options as well. Adaptive management would guide the implementation of the selected alternative. The costs of implementing alternatives B, C, D and E are estimated at: $16.4 million, $10.4 million, $5.6 million, and $16.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would facilitate the success and functionality of current and future wetland restoration activities. Management of the Canada geese population would reduce adverse effects of resident goose grazing pressure on restored wetlands to ensure plant regeneration sufficient to reach the desired condition of a functional wetland system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative B, which would provide the highest level of wetlands and goose management, impacts to the population of Canada geese would be perceptible at the Maryland or District of Columbia resident Canada goose population level, but not at the Atlantic Flyway population levels. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110238, 408 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Erosion Control KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Anacostia Park KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.title=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 60 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888695769; 14999-9_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888695769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. [Part 8 of 12] T2 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. AN - 888695768; 14998-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A plan is to guide and direct the management of wetlands and resident (non-migratory) Canada geese at Anacostia Park, Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Anacostia Park is a part of the National Capital Parks East unit and encompasses 1,300 acres along the banks of the Anacostia River in the District of Columbia and Maryland. This plan/EIS includes only those lands within the current National Park Service (NPS) jurisdiction of Anacostia Park. The NPS has been working in collaboration with stakeholders to restore nearly 100 acres of tidal wetlands along the Anacostia River, but over the past decade, a growing population of resident Canada geese has jeopardized the restoration efforts. A reduction in the abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation has already occurred. Wetland management includes the following elements: hydrology, vegetation, cultural/education, wetland restoration, and park operations. Goose management includes: lethal control (killing), habitat modification, scare and harassment, reproductive control, and cultural/education. Five alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would continue current wetland and goose management activities: invasive species management, trash management, public education, goose egg oiling, goose population monitoring, goose exclusion fencing, and wetland vegetation planting. Alternative B would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive goose management (lethal control to remove 40 to 60 percent of the resident population combined with other non-lethal techniques). Alternative B also considers new wetland restoration options. Alternative C would combine the second most aggressive set of wetlands management options with a moderate level of lethal and non-lethal goose management techniques. This alternative assumes that more intensive wetland management would be needed to counteract the resident goose population that would remain in the area. Alternative D includes a plan for low wetlands management and low goose management combining less aggressive wetlands management options with lethal goose management one time during the planning period and only as a last resort. Alternative E would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive non-lethal goose management techniques (no lethal controls). This alternative considers new wetland restoration options as well. Adaptive management would guide the implementation of the selected alternative. The costs of implementing alternatives B, C, D and E are estimated at: $16.4 million, $10.4 million, $5.6 million, and $16.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would facilitate the success and functionality of current and future wetland restoration activities. Management of the Canada geese population would reduce adverse effects of resident goose grazing pressure on restored wetlands to ensure plant regeneration sufficient to reach the desired condition of a functional wetland system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative B, which would provide the highest level of wetlands and goose management, impacts to the population of Canada geese would be perceptible at the Maryland or District of Columbia resident Canada goose population level, but not at the Atlantic Flyway population levels. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110238, 408 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Erosion Control KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Anacostia Park KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695768?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.title=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. [Part 7 of 12] T2 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. AN - 888695765; 14998-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A plan is to guide and direct the management of wetlands and resident (non-migratory) Canada geese at Anacostia Park, Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Anacostia Park is a part of the National Capital Parks East unit and encompasses 1,300 acres along the banks of the Anacostia River in the District of Columbia and Maryland. This plan/EIS includes only those lands within the current National Park Service (NPS) jurisdiction of Anacostia Park. The NPS has been working in collaboration with stakeholders to restore nearly 100 acres of tidal wetlands along the Anacostia River, but over the past decade, a growing population of resident Canada geese has jeopardized the restoration efforts. A reduction in the abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation has already occurred. Wetland management includes the following elements: hydrology, vegetation, cultural/education, wetland restoration, and park operations. Goose management includes: lethal control (killing), habitat modification, scare and harassment, reproductive control, and cultural/education. Five alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would continue current wetland and goose management activities: invasive species management, trash management, public education, goose egg oiling, goose population monitoring, goose exclusion fencing, and wetland vegetation planting. Alternative B would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive goose management (lethal control to remove 40 to 60 percent of the resident population combined with other non-lethal techniques). Alternative B also considers new wetland restoration options. Alternative C would combine the second most aggressive set of wetlands management options with a moderate level of lethal and non-lethal goose management techniques. This alternative assumes that more intensive wetland management would be needed to counteract the resident goose population that would remain in the area. Alternative D includes a plan for low wetlands management and low goose management combining less aggressive wetlands management options with lethal goose management one time during the planning period and only as a last resort. Alternative E would combine the most aggressive wetlands management techniques with intensive non-lethal goose management techniques (no lethal controls). This alternative considers new wetland restoration options as well. Adaptive management would guide the implementation of the selected alternative. The costs of implementing alternatives B, C, D and E are estimated at: $16.4 million, $10.4 million, $5.6 million, and $16.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would facilitate the success and functionality of current and future wetland restoration activities. Management of the Canada geese population would reduce adverse effects of resident goose grazing pressure on restored wetlands to ensure plant regeneration sufficient to reach the desired condition of a functional wetland system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative B, which would provide the highest level of wetlands and goose management, impacts to the population of Canada geese would be perceptible at the Maryland or District of Columbia resident Canada goose population level, but not at the Atlantic Flyway population levels. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110238, 408 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Erosion Control KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Anacostia Park KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695765?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.title=ANACOSTIA+PARK+WETLAND+AND+RESIDENT+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-68 AND CORRIDOR H, GRANT, HARDY, HAMPSHIRE, AND MINERAL COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA, AND ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - US 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-68 AND CORRIDOR H, GRANT, HARDY, HAMPSHIRE, AND MINERAL COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA, AND ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 888695763; 15003-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a north-south transportation corridor along US 220 that would connect Interstate 68 (I-68) in Maryland and Corridor H in West Virginia is proposed. The study area encompasses over 835 square miles and includes portions of southwestern Allegany County, Maryland and all of Mineral County, and portions of Grant, Hampshire, and Hardy counties, West Virginia. Transportation deficiencies include numerous curves, reduced speeds, steep grades, few truck climbing lanes, inadequate shoulders, and substandard geometry. The new corridor could be comprised of roadways on new alignment, an upgrade of existing roadways, or some combination of upgrading existing roads and building new roads. The upgraded roadways would become part of the National Highway System (NHS). Corridor H, which is the southern terminus of the project, is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). This Tier 1 draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and three alternative corridors for the proposed facility. Corridor B begins with an interchange near existing Exits 41 and 42 along I-68 between LaVale and Cumberland, Maryland and extends southwest to Cresaptown crossing MD 53. At this point, it parallels US 220 to the west and Dans Mountain to the east. West of McCoole, Corridor B crosses MD 135, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and WV 46. Entering Mineral County, Corridor B is west of Keyser and continues to parallel US 220 on the western side. At the junction with WV 972, Corridor B continues southwest along US 50 and near Claysville, it begins to parallel WV 93, entering Grant County and extending to a terminus at Corridor H north of Scherr. Corridor C begins with an interchange near existing Exit 46 along I-68 east of Cumberland and extends south through the Willowbrook Road area near the Allegany College of Maryland to Evitts Creek and briefly parallels MD 51. Corridor C then turns west through Mexico Farms and crosses the North Branch of the Potomac River into Mineral County where it parallels WV 28. Continuing southwest, Corridor C parallels County Route 9 west of Short Gap, well east of Keyser. Crossing US 50/220 at Ridgeville and continuing southwest, Corridor C enters Grant County paralleling County Route 3 and connects with Corridor H just north of Maysville. Corridor D begins with an interchange near existing Exit 39 along I-68 near LaVale and closely follows Corridor B between Cresaptown and the US 50/220 coupling just south of Keyser. Corridor D originates on the eastern slope of Dans Mountain and extends south for a short distance on the western side of MD 53. From Cresaptown, Corridor D runs southwest paralleling US 220 to the west and Dans Mountain to the east. West of McCoole, Corridor D crosses MD 135, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and WV 46. Entering Mineral County, Corridor D runs west of Keyser and continues to parallel US 220 on the western side. At the junction with WV 972, Corridor D turns southeast along US 220, continues along US 50/220, County Route 50/4, and County Route 13 crossing into Hampshire County. Rejoining US 220/WV 28, Corridor D turns southward and crosses into Hardy County. Corridor D parallels US 220 until its connection with Corridor H just north of Moorefield. The estimated costs of a new highway facility are $482 to $500 million in Corridor B, $651 million in Corridor C, and $630 to $648 million in Corridor D. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inadequate roadway capacity, safety deficiencies, and limited regional mobility. The additional north-south system linkage would complete the regional road network and support economic development in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Corridor development would impact 118 to 152 acres of wetlands, 300,239 to 448,803 feet of streams, 719 to 2,244 acres of floodplains, four to eight flood control dams, 127 to 720 acres of rangeland, 9,890 to 11,409 acres of forests, 1,491 to 3,335 acres of prime farmland, eight to 10 parks and recreation areas, four to 21 historic sites, 5,338 to 7,709 acres with very high or high archaeological potential, and 58 to 70 community facilities. Residential and commercial displacements would result from impacts to built-up land: 4,060 acres in Corridor B; 2,940 acres in Corridor C; and 3,820 acres in Corridor D. Impacts to community cohesion would occur around new interchanges and major side road connections. Construction in any of the corridors could have a disproportionate effect to minority and low-income populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-4), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110243, Draft EIS--582 pages, Appendices and Maps--CD-ROM, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Appalachian Development Highways KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - West Virginia KW - Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695763?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+220+NATIONAL+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+%28NHS%29+CORRIDOR+BETWEEN+I-68+AND+CORRIDOR+H%2C+GRANT%2C+HARDY%2C+HAMPSHIRE%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+ALLEGANY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=US+220+NATIONAL+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+%28NHS%29+CORRIDOR+BETWEEN+I-68+AND+CORRIDOR+H%2C+GRANT%2C+HARDY%2C+HAMPSHIRE%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+ALLEGANY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Charleston, West Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 59 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888695761; 14999-9_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/888695761?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-68 AND CORRIDOR H, GRANT, HARDY, HAMPSHIRE, AND MINERAL COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA, AND ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - US 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-68 AND CORRIDOR H, GRANT, HARDY, HAMPSHIRE, AND MINERAL COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA, AND ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 888695759; 15003-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a north-south transportation corridor along US 220 that would connect Interstate 68 (I-68) in Maryland and Corridor H in West Virginia is proposed. The study area encompasses over 835 square miles and includes portions of southwestern Allegany County, Maryland and all of Mineral County, and portions of Grant, Hampshire, and Hardy counties, West Virginia. Transportation deficiencies include numerous curves, reduced speeds, steep grades, few truck climbing lanes, inadequate shoulders, and substandard geometry. The new corridor could be comprised of roadways on new alignment, an upgrade of existing roadways, or some combination of upgrading existing roads and building new roads. The upgraded roadways would become part of the National Highway System (NHS). Corridor H, which is the southern terminus of the project, is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). This Tier 1 draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and three alternative corridors for the proposed facility. Corridor B begins with an interchange near existing Exits 41 and 42 along I-68 between LaVale and Cumberland, Maryland and extends southwest to Cresaptown crossing MD 53. At this point, it parallels US 220 to the west and Dans Mountain to the east. West of McCoole, Corridor B crosses MD 135, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and WV 46. Entering Mineral County, Corridor B is west of Keyser and continues to parallel US 220 on the western side. At the junction with WV 972, Corridor B continues southwest along US 50 and near Claysville, it begins to parallel WV 93, entering Grant County and extending to a terminus at Corridor H north of Scherr. Corridor C begins with an interchange near existing Exit 46 along I-68 east of Cumberland and extends south through the Willowbrook Road area near the Allegany College of Maryland to Evitts Creek and briefly parallels MD 51. Corridor C then turns west through Mexico Farms and crosses the North Branch of the Potomac River into Mineral County where it parallels WV 28. Continuing southwest, Corridor C parallels County Route 9 west of Short Gap, well east of Keyser. Crossing US 50/220 at Ridgeville and continuing southwest, Corridor C enters Grant County paralleling County Route 3 and connects with Corridor H just north of Maysville. Corridor D begins with an interchange near existing Exit 39 along I-68 near LaVale and closely follows Corridor B between Cresaptown and the US 50/220 coupling just south of Keyser. Corridor D originates on the eastern slope of Dans Mountain and extends south for a short distance on the western side of MD 53. From Cresaptown, Corridor D runs southwest paralleling US 220 to the west and Dans Mountain to the east. West of McCoole, Corridor D crosses MD 135, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and WV 46. Entering Mineral County, Corridor D runs west of Keyser and continues to parallel US 220 on the western side. At the junction with WV 972, Corridor D turns southeast along US 220, continues along US 50/220, County Route 50/4, and County Route 13 crossing into Hampshire County. Rejoining US 220/WV 28, Corridor D turns southward and crosses into Hardy County. Corridor D parallels US 220 until its connection with Corridor H just north of Moorefield. The estimated costs of a new highway facility are $482 to $500 million in Corridor B, $651 million in Corridor C, and $630 to $648 million in Corridor D. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inadequate roadway capacity, safety deficiencies, and limited regional mobility. The additional north-south system linkage would complete the regional road network and support economic development in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Corridor development would impact 118 to 152 acres of wetlands, 300,239 to 448,803 feet of streams, 719 to 2,244 acres of floodplains, four to eight flood control dams, 127 to 720 acres of rangeland, 9,890 to 11,409 acres of forests, 1,491 to 3,335 acres of prime farmland, eight to 10 parks and recreation areas, four to 21 historic sites, 5,338 to 7,709 acres with very high or high archaeological potential, and 58 to 70 community facilities. Residential and commercial displacements would result from impacts to built-up land: 4,060 acres in Corridor B; 2,940 acres in Corridor C; and 3,820 acres in Corridor D. Impacts to community cohesion would occur around new interchanges and major side road connections. Construction in any of the corridors could have a disproportionate effect to minority and low-income populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-4), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110243, Draft EIS--582 pages, Appendices and Maps--CD-ROM, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Appalachian Development Highways KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - West Virginia KW - Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695759?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+220+NATIONAL+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+%28NHS%29+CORRIDOR+BETWEEN+I-68+AND+CORRIDOR+H%2C+GRANT%2C+HARDY%2C+HAMPSHIRE%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+ALLEGANY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=US+220+NATIONAL+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+%28NHS%29+CORRIDOR+BETWEEN+I-68+AND+CORRIDOR+H%2C+GRANT%2C+HARDY%2C+HAMPSHIRE%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+ALLEGANY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Charleston, West Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-68 AND CORRIDOR H, GRANT, HARDY, HAMPSHIRE, AND MINERAL COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA, AND ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - US 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-68 AND CORRIDOR H, GRANT, HARDY, HAMPSHIRE, AND MINERAL COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA, AND ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 888695755; 15003-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a north-south transportation corridor along US 220 that would connect Interstate 68 (I-68) in Maryland and Corridor H in West Virginia is proposed. The study area encompasses over 835 square miles and includes portions of southwestern Allegany County, Maryland and all of Mineral County, and portions of Grant, Hampshire, and Hardy counties, West Virginia. Transportation deficiencies include numerous curves, reduced speeds, steep grades, few truck climbing lanes, inadequate shoulders, and substandard geometry. The new corridor could be comprised of roadways on new alignment, an upgrade of existing roadways, or some combination of upgrading existing roads and building new roads. The upgraded roadways would become part of the National Highway System (NHS). Corridor H, which is the southern terminus of the project, is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). This Tier 1 draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and three alternative corridors for the proposed facility. Corridor B begins with an interchange near existing Exits 41 and 42 along I-68 between LaVale and Cumberland, Maryland and extends southwest to Cresaptown crossing MD 53. At this point, it parallels US 220 to the west and Dans Mountain to the east. West of McCoole, Corridor B crosses MD 135, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and WV 46. Entering Mineral County, Corridor B is west of Keyser and continues to parallel US 220 on the western side. At the junction with WV 972, Corridor B continues southwest along US 50 and near Claysville, it begins to parallel WV 93, entering Grant County and extending to a terminus at Corridor H north of Scherr. Corridor C begins with an interchange near existing Exit 46 along I-68 east of Cumberland and extends south through the Willowbrook Road area near the Allegany College of Maryland to Evitts Creek and briefly parallels MD 51. Corridor C then turns west through Mexico Farms and crosses the North Branch of the Potomac River into Mineral County where it parallels WV 28. Continuing southwest, Corridor C parallels County Route 9 west of Short Gap, well east of Keyser. Crossing US 50/220 at Ridgeville and continuing southwest, Corridor C enters Grant County paralleling County Route 3 and connects with Corridor H just north of Maysville. Corridor D begins with an interchange near existing Exit 39 along I-68 near LaVale and closely follows Corridor B between Cresaptown and the US 50/220 coupling just south of Keyser. Corridor D originates on the eastern slope of Dans Mountain and extends south for a short distance on the western side of MD 53. From Cresaptown, Corridor D runs southwest paralleling US 220 to the west and Dans Mountain to the east. West of McCoole, Corridor D crosses MD 135, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and WV 46. Entering Mineral County, Corridor D runs west of Keyser and continues to parallel US 220 on the western side. At the junction with WV 972, Corridor D turns southeast along US 220, continues along US 50/220, County Route 50/4, and County Route 13 crossing into Hampshire County. Rejoining US 220/WV 28, Corridor D turns southward and crosses into Hardy County. Corridor D parallels US 220 until its connection with Corridor H just north of Moorefield. The estimated costs of a new highway facility are $482 to $500 million in Corridor B, $651 million in Corridor C, and $630 to $648 million in Corridor D. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inadequate roadway capacity, safety deficiencies, and limited regional mobility. The additional north-south system linkage would complete the regional road network and support economic development in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Corridor development would impact 118 to 152 acres of wetlands, 300,239 to 448,803 feet of streams, 719 to 2,244 acres of floodplains, four to eight flood control dams, 127 to 720 acres of rangeland, 9,890 to 11,409 acres of forests, 1,491 to 3,335 acres of prime farmland, eight to 10 parks and recreation areas, four to 21 historic sites, 5,338 to 7,709 acres with very high or high archaeological potential, and 58 to 70 community facilities. Residential and commercial displacements would result from impacts to built-up land: 4,060 acres in Corridor B; 2,940 acres in Corridor C; and 3,820 acres in Corridor D. Impacts to community cohesion would occur around new interchanges and major side road connections. Construction in any of the corridors could have a disproportionate effect to minority and low-income populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-4), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110243, Draft EIS--582 pages, Appendices and Maps--CD-ROM, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Appalachian Development Highways KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - West Virginia KW - Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+220+NATIONAL+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+%28NHS%29+CORRIDOR+BETWEEN+I-68+AND+CORRIDOR+H%2C+GRANT%2C+HARDY%2C+HAMPSHIRE%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+ALLEGANY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=US+220+NATIONAL+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+%28NHS%29+CORRIDOR+BETWEEN+I-68+AND+CORRIDOR+H%2C+GRANT%2C+HARDY%2C+HAMPSHIRE%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+ALLEGANY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Charleston, West Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 16388284; 14999 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest 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/16388284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 16386593; 15002 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of semi-transparent fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. A temporary rationing program would be implemented, which would provide for increased boating use during the two-week exhibition period, and the removal of fabric panels immediately following the exhibition period (four to six weeks total). The installation, exhibition, and removal phases are projected to attract 416,000 visitors over an approximately three-year period, including 344,000 visitors during the 2-week exhibition proposed for the first half of August, 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands area of critical environmental concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities including rail traffic and use of heavy equipment and large rock drills would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. It is estimated that US 50 lane closures would occur on 177 days over the 28-month installation period when crews are working on the highway side of the river. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, the expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0521D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110242, Final EIS--948 pages and maps, Appendices--674 pages and maps, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 11-15 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16386593?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLICKITAT HATCHERY COMPLEX PROGRAM, KLICKITAT AND YAKIMA COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 16374301; 14995 AB - PURPOSE: The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is proposing to fund the Yakama Nation's Klickitat Hatchery Complex Program, located in Klickitat and Yakima counties, Washington. The intent of the proposed changes to the salmon and steelhead hatchery programs in the Klickitat subbasin is to increase the abundance of spring Chinook and steelhead natural spawning, decrease impacts of the non-native fall Chinook and coho programs, and increase harvest opportunities for Yakama Nation tribal members and others. These changes would result in modification of the Klickitat Hatchery, located seven miles east of Glenwood, Washington at river mile 42.5 of the Klickitat River. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are evaluated in this draft EIS. The Full Master Plan Buildout Alternative (Alternative 1) would include modifications to the Klickitat Hatchery, a new hatchery and acclimation facility at the Wahkiacus site located at river mile 17 on the Klickitat River, and an acclimation facility at McCreedy Creek at river mile 70, should it be deemed necessary. The Wahkiacus facility would include a new hatchery building, a maintenance building, a number of raceways, and other buildings and facilities related to fish production. The integrated hatchery/harvest program for spring Chinook would involve replacement of existing broodstock with natural-origin adults collected at Lyle Falls Fishway and Castile Falls. At the Klickitat Hatchery, 800,000 spring Chinook would be incubated, reared, and released as smolts. Summer steelhead production would initially be designed as a segregated harvest program. Approximately 130,000 juveniles would be released from the Klickitat Hatchery for the harvest component. Alternative 2 would also establish a local broodstock segregated hatchery program for coho and a segregated hatchery/harvest program for fall Chinook. Under the Klickitat Hatchery Buildout Alternative (Alternative 3), hatchery production would be managed at a modified Klickitat Hatchery and no new facilities would be constructed at Wahkiacus. Both build alternatives incorporate adaptive management strategies, remote and mobile acclimation facilities, and climate change adaptations. The primary adaptive management strategy relates to summer steelhead conservation and the recolonization of upstream reaches. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support BPAs efforts to further mitigate the adverse effects of the Federal Columbia River Power System on salmonids generally, and fish in the Klickitat River subbasin particularly. The increased numbers of harvestable fish in the subbasin would benefit Yakama Nation tribal members and others who fish for salmon and steelhead. By reducing the numbers of smolts of introduced species (coho salmon) released into the subbasin and applying the most current findings regarding acclimation and integrated hatchery reform, the Klickitat Hatchery Complex Program is endeavoring to achieve self-sustaining native fish populations in the Klickitat River Subbasin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative 2, a total of 33.2 acres of soil would be disturbed at the Wahkiacus, Klickitat Hatchery, and McCreedy Creek sites. Alternative 3 would alter 21.5 acres at the Klickitat Hatchery and McCreedy Creek sites. Ground disturbing activities would increase erosion and sediment run-off to the Klickitat River, Swale Creek, and McCreedy Creek in the short term. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in loss of 5.9 acres and 3.7 acres of wildlife habitat, respectively. The renovation of the existing historic Klickitat Hatchery and demolition of three existing historic residences would have an adverse effect on structures potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 839 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110235, 362 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DOE/EA-0424 KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Fish KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Historic Sites KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife KW - Klickitat River KW - Washington KW - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374301?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLICKITAT+HATCHERY+COMPLEX+PROGRAM%2C+KLICKITAT+AND+YAKIMA+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=KLICKITAT+HATCHERY+COMPLEX+PROGRAM%2C+KLICKITAT+AND+YAKIMA+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 16373904; 15000 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing vehicle use for the next 15 to 20 years along the 92-mile-long Park Road at Denali National Park and Preserve in Alaska are proposed. The Denali Park Road is the only road that winds into the six-million-acre wilderness landscape. The present approach for managing vehicles is based on the parks 1986 General Management Plan, which established an allowable seasonal limit of 10,512 vehicles on the Park Road past Mile 15 from approximately Memorial Day to a week after Labor Day. With visitation steadily growing, the park is approaching the core season vehicle limit. Whereas the vehicle limit is clearly measureable, it is less clear that a numerical limit alone is enough to adequately protect park resources and provide for a high quality visitor experience. Other factors to be considered include: visitor perceptions of crowding at wildlife stops and rest stops; interactions between busses and wildlife; and wildlife movements in the Park Road corridor. Three management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) that would continue current management, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative B would optimize access by promoting maximized seating on all transit and tour vehicles to offer the largest number of visitors the opportunity to travel the Park Road. Alternative C would maximize visitor opportunities by promoting a variety of opportunities that range from brief experiences in the parks entrance area, to short and long visits along segments of the Park Road, to multiday experiences in the backcountry. Both action alternatives propose to manage for desired resource and visitor use conditions using the same indicators and standards. For the restricted section of the Park Road, which extends from Savage River to Wonder Lake, the following indicators would be monitored annually: sheep gap spacing, night time traffic levels, large vehicles, vehicles at a wildlife stop, vehicles in a viewscape, and wait time for hiker vehicles at rest areas and the Eielson visitor center. Under Alternative C, a new management subzone would be created west of Eielson Visitor Center to Wonder Lake. This section would be managed for the lowest traffic volume on the Park Road and significant growth beyond the current condition would not be allowed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would guide management to provide a high quality experience for visitors; protect wilderness resources and values, scenic values, wildlife, and other park resources; and maintain the unique character of the Park Road. Under both action alternatives, vehicle use would be adaptively managed to achieve specific desired conditions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The wilderness character of the park may be affected by the volume, timing, and types of vehicle use. Dall sheep, grizzly bear, caribou, moose, gray wolf other wildlife species and habitat could be impacted. Changes to administrative use of the road, monitoring of indicators and standards, and changes to education/interpretation would affect park operations, management and costs. The social and economic conditions of the local gateway and regional communities could be influenced. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), 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: 110240, 334 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance 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/16373904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denali Park, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCKSKIN MINE HAY CREEK II COAL LEASE APPLICATION, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING (FEDERAL COAL LEASE APPLICATION WYW-172684). AN - 16368465; 14997 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing of a contiguous block of federal coal reserves adjacent to the existing Buckskin Mine located 12 miles north of Gillette in Campbell County, Wyoming is proposed. The Hay Creek II tract encompasses 419 surface acres and includes approximately 77.2 million tons of in-place coal reserves. Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. filed an application to lease the recoverable federal coal as a maintenance tract that can be recovered by an active coal mine. Key issues identified during scoping include potential conflicts between existing and proposed oil and gas development, impacts to big game herds and hunting, impacts to sage-grouse and listed species, potential health impacts related to blasting, cumulative impacts of coal leasing decisions on the Powder River Basin, and impacts on air and water quality. Three alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the coal lease application would be rejected and the existing leases at the Buckskin Mine would be developed according to the current approved mining plan. Under the proposed action, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would hold a competitive, sealed-bid sale and issue a lease for the 77.2 million tons of federal coal reserves. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, the BLM would hold a competitive, sealed-bid sale and issue a lease for the federal coal reserves included in an alternative tract configuration that could include all or part of the proposed tract and additional reserves within a study area encompassing 1,883 acres and 269.7 million tons of in-place coal reserves. No new life-of-mine facilities would be built under any of the alternatives; coal reserves would be mined as an extension of the existing mine. The potential additional federal revenue from the general analysis area is estimated at $69 to $241 million. The potential additional revenue to the state of Wyoming from the general analysis area is estimated at $91 to $300 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The maintenance tract lease would extend the life of the mine for two to six years and generate significant revenue for the federal government and the state of Wyoming. Approximately 54 million tons of coal would be recovered from the proposed tract, and up to 149.7 million tons from the BLM study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, surface mining would affect 2,847 acres of soil resources. The topography of the area would be permanently changed with reclaimed lands approximately 60 feet lower than today. Moderately adverse impacts on air quality would continue for two to six years. Mining would cause a long-term reduction in groundwater in aquifers beyond the final tract configuration as a result of seepage and dewatering. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0064D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110237, 827 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/045+1320 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coal KW - Leasing KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16368465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCKSKIN+MINE+HAY+CREEK+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW-172684%29.&rft.title=BUCKSKIN+MINE+HAY+CREEK+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW-172684%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Casper, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 9 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888701318; 14987-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 8 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888701317; 14987-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701317?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 7 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888701316; 14987-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701316?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 6 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888701315; 14987-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 5 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888701314; 14987-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701314?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 14 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888701075; 14993-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888701075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 13 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888701071; 14993-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888701071?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 12 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888701069; 14993-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888701069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 11 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888701065; 14993-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888701065?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 10 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888701061; 14993-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888701061?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 9 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888701057; 14993-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888701057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 8 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888701048; 14993-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888701048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 6 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888701039; 14993-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888701039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 5 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888701036; 14993-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888701036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888701030; 14993-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888701030?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888701025; 14993-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888701025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 15 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888700567; 14987-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888700567?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 1 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888698116; 14987-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 20 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888698114; 14991-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 19 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888698104; 14991-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 18 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888698101; 14991-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 17 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888698098; 14991-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698098?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 12 of 12] T2 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888698097; 14992-2_0012 AB - PURPOSE: A Visual Resource Management (VRM) Amendment to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) is proposed to address wind energy development in Carbon County, Wyoming. This amendment is being drafted concurrently with the development of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project EIS. The project would consist of two wind farm sites located within the CCSM wind site testing and monitoring application area, totaling 222,689 acres of public, private, and state land, and application areas for rights-of-way for ancillary facilities. A majority of the CCSM wind site application area is designated as VRM Class III, but a portion of the Sierra Madre site is identified as VRM Class II. Wind energy development typically is not considered to be compatible with VRM Class I; VRM Class II within the foreground/middleground and background distance zones; and VRM Class III within the foreground/middleground zone. VRM Class IV provides for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The BLM has completed a visual resource inventory for the development of a range of alternatives in this project-specific plan amendment. VRM class designations will be considered and analyzed in a future plan review for the remainder of the Rawlins Field Office area. The most prominent land use feature in the planning area is a large swath of land that is divided into a checkerboard pattern of ownership. Visual resources are influenced by a variety of topographic, geologic, hydrological, vegetative, and other characteristics of the region and the excellent air quality allows for mostly unobstructed views. Topography ranges from relatively flat land and low rolling or flat-topped hills to high elevations containing mountain shrub vegetation. The planning area also includes a diverse landscape that supports multiple uses such as wind development, other lands and realty developments, mineral development, livestock grazing, and some commercial timber harvest. The planning area contains 1.2 million acres with high wind potential, 565,390 acres of areas with high and moderate potential for oil and gas, and the 5,670-acre Elk Mountain Forest. Sensitive lands and resources include: the Encampment River Canyon and Prospect Mountain wilderness study areas; the Sand Hills/JO Ranch area of critical environmental concern; and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and North Platte River special recreation management areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the development of resources allowing for management activities to dominate the view and remain the major focus of viewer attention. Alternative 3 would emphasize protection of resources and preservation of the existing character of the landscape. Relative to all alternatives, Alternative 3 would allow management activities to be seen, but not attract the attention of the casual observer or dominate the landscape. Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative and would strive for a balance of opportunities to allow some modification while partially retaining the existing character of the landscape. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The VRM-targeted plan amendment will determine the management actions for visual resources on public lands in the decision area and amend the associated decisions in the Rawlins RMP. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the decision area managed as VRM Class IV would increase from five percent (39,180) to 58 percent (430,732 acres). Visual intrusions and high levels of landscape alteration that affect cultural resources and recreation areas would increase compared to current management. Timber harvesting restrictions would be reduced on northeastern forested lands while southern forested lands with potential for commercial harvest would remain in the VRM Class II and III designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110232, 103 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698097?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 11 of 12] T2 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888698096; 14992-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: A Visual Resource Management (VRM) Amendment to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) is proposed to address wind energy development in Carbon County, Wyoming. This amendment is being drafted concurrently with the development of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project EIS. The project would consist of two wind farm sites located within the CCSM wind site testing and monitoring application area, totaling 222,689 acres of public, private, and state land, and application areas for rights-of-way for ancillary facilities. A majority of the CCSM wind site application area is designated as VRM Class III, but a portion of the Sierra Madre site is identified as VRM Class II. Wind energy development typically is not considered to be compatible with VRM Class I; VRM Class II within the foreground/middleground and background distance zones; and VRM Class III within the foreground/middleground zone. VRM Class IV provides for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The BLM has completed a visual resource inventory for the development of a range of alternatives in this project-specific plan amendment. VRM class designations will be considered and analyzed in a future plan review for the remainder of the Rawlins Field Office area. The most prominent land use feature in the planning area is a large swath of land that is divided into a checkerboard pattern of ownership. Visual resources are influenced by a variety of topographic, geologic, hydrological, vegetative, and other characteristics of the region and the excellent air quality allows for mostly unobstructed views. Topography ranges from relatively flat land and low rolling or flat-topped hills to high elevations containing mountain shrub vegetation. The planning area also includes a diverse landscape that supports multiple uses such as wind development, other lands and realty developments, mineral development, livestock grazing, and some commercial timber harvest. The planning area contains 1.2 million acres with high wind potential, 565,390 acres of areas with high and moderate potential for oil and gas, and the 5,670-acre Elk Mountain Forest. Sensitive lands and resources include: the Encampment River Canyon and Prospect Mountain wilderness study areas; the Sand Hills/JO Ranch area of critical environmental concern; and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and North Platte River special recreation management areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the development of resources allowing for management activities to dominate the view and remain the major focus of viewer attention. Alternative 3 would emphasize protection of resources and preservation of the existing character of the landscape. Relative to all alternatives, Alternative 3 would allow management activities to be seen, but not attract the attention of the casual observer or dominate the landscape. Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative and would strive for a balance of opportunities to allow some modification while partially retaining the existing character of the landscape. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The VRM-targeted plan amendment will determine the management actions for visual resources on public lands in the decision area and amend the associated decisions in the Rawlins RMP. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the decision area managed as VRM Class IV would increase from five percent (39,180) to 58 percent (430,732 acres). Visual intrusions and high levels of landscape alteration that affect cultural resources and recreation areas would increase compared to current management. Timber harvesting restrictions would be reduced on northeastern forested lands while southern forested lands with potential for commercial harvest would remain in the VRM Class II and III designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110232, 103 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698096?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 11 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888698059; 14991-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 10 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888698058; 14991-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698058?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888698056; 14991-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698056?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888698055; 14991-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698055?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888698053; 14991-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888698052; 14991-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 16 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888698042; 14987-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 24 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888697984; 14993-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888697984?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2000-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=0662650484&rft.btitle=Gathering+Strength%3A+Canada%27s+Aboriginal+Action+Plan.+A+Progress+Report+%3D+Rassembler+nos+forces%3A+Le+plan+d%27action+du+Canada+pour+les+questions+autochtones.+Rapport+d%27etape.&rft.title=Gathering+Strength%3A+Canada%27s+Aboriginal+Action+Plan.+A+Progress+Report+%3D+Rassembler+nos+forces%3A+Le+plan+d%27action+du+Canada+pour+les+questions+autochtones.+Rapport+d%27etape.&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 - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 23 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888697980; 14993-3_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888697980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 22 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888697976; 14993-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888697976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Friesen%2C+John+W.%3BFriesen%2C+Virginia+Lyons&rft.aulast=Friesen&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2002-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=1550592416&rft.btitle=Aboriginal+Education+in+Canada%3A+A+Plea+for+Integration.&rft.title=Aboriginal+Education+in+Canada%3A+A+Plea+for+Integration.&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 - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 25 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888697614; 14993-3_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888697614?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 4 of 12] T2 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888697496; 14992-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A Visual Resource Management (VRM) Amendment to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) is proposed to address wind energy development in Carbon County, Wyoming. This amendment is being drafted concurrently with the development of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project EIS. The project would consist of two wind farm sites located within the CCSM wind site testing and monitoring application area, totaling 222,689 acres of public, private, and state land, and application areas for rights-of-way for ancillary facilities. A majority of the CCSM wind site application area is designated as VRM Class III, but a portion of the Sierra Madre site is identified as VRM Class II. Wind energy development typically is not considered to be compatible with VRM Class I; VRM Class II within the foreground/middleground and background distance zones; and VRM Class III within the foreground/middleground zone. VRM Class IV provides for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The BLM has completed a visual resource inventory for the development of a range of alternatives in this project-specific plan amendment. VRM class designations will be considered and analyzed in a future plan review for the remainder of the Rawlins Field Office area. The most prominent land use feature in the planning area is a large swath of land that is divided into a checkerboard pattern of ownership. Visual resources are influenced by a variety of topographic, geologic, hydrological, vegetative, and other characteristics of the region and the excellent air quality allows for mostly unobstructed views. Topography ranges from relatively flat land and low rolling or flat-topped hills to high elevations containing mountain shrub vegetation. The planning area also includes a diverse landscape that supports multiple uses such as wind development, other lands and realty developments, mineral development, livestock grazing, and some commercial timber harvest. The planning area contains 1.2 million acres with high wind potential, 565,390 acres of areas with high and moderate potential for oil and gas, and the 5,670-acre Elk Mountain Forest. Sensitive lands and resources include: the Encampment River Canyon and Prospect Mountain wilderness study areas; the Sand Hills/JO Ranch area of critical environmental concern; and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and North Platte River special recreation management areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the development of resources allowing for management activities to dominate the view and remain the major focus of viewer attention. Alternative 3 would emphasize protection of resources and preservation of the existing character of the landscape. Relative to all alternatives, Alternative 3 would allow management activities to be seen, but not attract the attention of the casual observer or dominate the landscape. Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative and would strive for a balance of opportunities to allow some modification while partially retaining the existing character of the landscape. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The VRM-targeted plan amendment will determine the management actions for visual resources on public lands in the decision area and amend the associated decisions in the Rawlins RMP. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the decision area managed as VRM Class IV would increase from five percent (39,180) to 58 percent (430,732 acres). Visual intrusions and high levels of landscape alteration that affect cultural resources and recreation areas would increase compared to current management. Timber harvesting restrictions would be reduced on northeastern forested lands while southern forested lands with potential for commercial harvest would remain in the VRM Class II and III designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110232, 103 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888697496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 10 of 12] T2 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888697263; 14992-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: A Visual Resource Management (VRM) Amendment to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) is proposed to address wind energy development in Carbon County, Wyoming. This amendment is being drafted concurrently with the development of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project EIS. The project would consist of two wind farm sites located within the CCSM wind site testing and monitoring application area, totaling 222,689 acres of public, private, and state land, and application areas for rights-of-way for ancillary facilities. A majority of the CCSM wind site application area is designated as VRM Class III, but a portion of the Sierra Madre site is identified as VRM Class II. Wind energy development typically is not considered to be compatible with VRM Class I; VRM Class II within the foreground/middleground and background distance zones; and VRM Class III within the foreground/middleground zone. VRM Class IV provides for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The BLM has completed a visual resource inventory for the development of a range of alternatives in this project-specific plan amendment. VRM class designations will be considered and analyzed in a future plan review for the remainder of the Rawlins Field Office area. The most prominent land use feature in the planning area is a large swath of land that is divided into a checkerboard pattern of ownership. Visual resources are influenced by a variety of topographic, geologic, hydrological, vegetative, and other characteristics of the region and the excellent air quality allows for mostly unobstructed views. Topography ranges from relatively flat land and low rolling or flat-topped hills to high elevations containing mountain shrub vegetation. The planning area also includes a diverse landscape that supports multiple uses such as wind development, other lands and realty developments, mineral development, livestock grazing, and some commercial timber harvest. The planning area contains 1.2 million acres with high wind potential, 565,390 acres of areas with high and moderate potential for oil and gas, and the 5,670-acre Elk Mountain Forest. Sensitive lands and resources include: the Encampment River Canyon and Prospect Mountain wilderness study areas; the Sand Hills/JO Ranch area of critical environmental concern; and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and North Platte River special recreation management areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the development of resources allowing for management activities to dominate the view and remain the major focus of viewer attention. Alternative 3 would emphasize protection of resources and preservation of the existing character of the landscape. Relative to all alternatives, Alternative 3 would allow management activities to be seen, but not attract the attention of the casual observer or dominate the landscape. Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative and would strive for a balance of opportunities to allow some modification while partially retaining the existing character of the landscape. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The VRM-targeted plan amendment will determine the management actions for visual resources on public lands in the decision area and amend the associated decisions in the Rawlins RMP. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the decision area managed as VRM Class IV would increase from five percent (39,180) to 58 percent (430,732 acres). Visual intrusions and high levels of landscape alteration that affect cultural resources and recreation areas would increase compared to current management. Timber harvesting restrictions would be reduced on northeastern forested lands while southern forested lands with potential for commercial harvest would remain in the VRM Class II and III designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110232, 103 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888697263?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 12] T2 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888697256; 14992-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A Visual Resource Management (VRM) Amendment to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) is proposed to address wind energy development in Carbon County, Wyoming. This amendment is being drafted concurrently with the development of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project EIS. The project would consist of two wind farm sites located within the CCSM wind site testing and monitoring application area, totaling 222,689 acres of public, private, and state land, and application areas for rights-of-way for ancillary facilities. A majority of the CCSM wind site application area is designated as VRM Class III, but a portion of the Sierra Madre site is identified as VRM Class II. Wind energy development typically is not considered to be compatible with VRM Class I; VRM Class II within the foreground/middleground and background distance zones; and VRM Class III within the foreground/middleground zone. VRM Class IV provides for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The BLM has completed a visual resource inventory for the development of a range of alternatives in this project-specific plan amendment. VRM class designations will be considered and analyzed in a future plan review for the remainder of the Rawlins Field Office area. The most prominent land use feature in the planning area is a large swath of land that is divided into a checkerboard pattern of ownership. Visual resources are influenced by a variety of topographic, geologic, hydrological, vegetative, and other characteristics of the region and the excellent air quality allows for mostly unobstructed views. Topography ranges from relatively flat land and low rolling or flat-topped hills to high elevations containing mountain shrub vegetation. The planning area also includes a diverse landscape that supports multiple uses such as wind development, other lands and realty developments, mineral development, livestock grazing, and some commercial timber harvest. The planning area contains 1.2 million acres with high wind potential, 565,390 acres of areas with high and moderate potential for oil and gas, and the 5,670-acre Elk Mountain Forest. Sensitive lands and resources include: the Encampment River Canyon and Prospect Mountain wilderness study areas; the Sand Hills/JO Ranch area of critical environmental concern; and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and North Platte River special recreation management areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the development of resources allowing for management activities to dominate the view and remain the major focus of viewer attention. Alternative 3 would emphasize protection of resources and preservation of the existing character of the landscape. Relative to all alternatives, Alternative 3 would allow management activities to be seen, but not attract the attention of the casual observer or dominate the landscape. Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative and would strive for a balance of opportunities to allow some modification while partially retaining the existing character of the landscape. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The VRM-targeted plan amendment will determine the management actions for visual resources on public lands in the decision area and amend the associated decisions in the Rawlins RMP. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the decision area managed as VRM Class IV would increase from five percent (39,180) to 58 percent (430,732 acres). Visual intrusions and high levels of landscape alteration that affect cultural resources and recreation areas would increase compared to current management. Timber harvesting restrictions would be reduced on northeastern forested lands while southern forested lands with potential for commercial harvest would remain in the VRM Class II and III designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110232, 103 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888697256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 12] T2 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888697250; 14992-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A Visual Resource Management (VRM) Amendment to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) is proposed to address wind energy development in Carbon County, Wyoming. This amendment is being drafted concurrently with the development of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project EIS. The project would consist of two wind farm sites located within the CCSM wind site testing and monitoring application area, totaling 222,689 acres of public, private, and state land, and application areas for rights-of-way for ancillary facilities. A majority of the CCSM wind site application area is designated as VRM Class III, but a portion of the Sierra Madre site is identified as VRM Class II. Wind energy development typically is not considered to be compatible with VRM Class I; VRM Class II within the foreground/middleground and background distance zones; and VRM Class III within the foreground/middleground zone. VRM Class IV provides for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The BLM has completed a visual resource inventory for the development of a range of alternatives in this project-specific plan amendment. VRM class designations will be considered and analyzed in a future plan review for the remainder of the Rawlins Field Office area. The most prominent land use feature in the planning area is a large swath of land that is divided into a checkerboard pattern of ownership. Visual resources are influenced by a variety of topographic, geologic, hydrological, vegetative, and other characteristics of the region and the excellent air quality allows for mostly unobstructed views. Topography ranges from relatively flat land and low rolling or flat-topped hills to high elevations containing mountain shrub vegetation. The planning area also includes a diverse landscape that supports multiple uses such as wind development, other lands and realty developments, mineral development, livestock grazing, and some commercial timber harvest. The planning area contains 1.2 million acres with high wind potential, 565,390 acres of areas with high and moderate potential for oil and gas, and the 5,670-acre Elk Mountain Forest. Sensitive lands and resources include: the Encampment River Canyon and Prospect Mountain wilderness study areas; the Sand Hills/JO Ranch area of critical environmental concern; and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and North Platte River special recreation management areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the development of resources allowing for management activities to dominate the view and remain the major focus of viewer attention. Alternative 3 would emphasize protection of resources and preservation of the existing character of the landscape. Relative to all alternatives, Alternative 3 would allow management activities to be seen, but not attract the attention of the casual observer or dominate the landscape. Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative and would strive for a balance of opportunities to allow some modification while partially retaining the existing character of the landscape. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The VRM-targeted plan amendment will determine the management actions for visual resources on public lands in the decision area and amend the associated decisions in the Rawlins RMP. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the decision area managed as VRM Class IV would increase from five percent (39,180) to 58 percent (430,732 acres). Visual intrusions and high levels of landscape alteration that affect cultural resources and recreation areas would increase compared to current management. Timber harvesting restrictions would be reduced on northeastern forested lands while southern forested lands with potential for commercial harvest would remain in the VRM Class II and III designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110232, 103 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888697250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 12] T2 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888697242; 14992-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A Visual Resource Management (VRM) Amendment to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) is proposed to address wind energy development in Carbon County, Wyoming. This amendment is being drafted concurrently with the development of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project EIS. The project would consist of two wind farm sites located within the CCSM wind site testing and monitoring application area, totaling 222,689 acres of public, private, and state land, and application areas for rights-of-way for ancillary facilities. A majority of the CCSM wind site application area is designated as VRM Class III, but a portion of the Sierra Madre site is identified as VRM Class II. Wind energy development typically is not considered to be compatible with VRM Class I; VRM Class II within the foreground/middleground and background distance zones; and VRM Class III within the foreground/middleground zone. VRM Class IV provides for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The BLM has completed a visual resource inventory for the development of a range of alternatives in this project-specific plan amendment. VRM class designations will be considered and analyzed in a future plan review for the remainder of the Rawlins Field Office area. The most prominent land use feature in the planning area is a large swath of land that is divided into a checkerboard pattern of ownership. Visual resources are influenced by a variety of topographic, geologic, hydrological, vegetative, and other characteristics of the region and the excellent air quality allows for mostly unobstructed views. Topography ranges from relatively flat land and low rolling or flat-topped hills to high elevations containing mountain shrub vegetation. The planning area also includes a diverse landscape that supports multiple uses such as wind development, other lands and realty developments, mineral development, livestock grazing, and some commercial timber harvest. The planning area contains 1.2 million acres with high wind potential, 565,390 acres of areas with high and moderate potential for oil and gas, and the 5,670-acre Elk Mountain Forest. Sensitive lands and resources include: the Encampment River Canyon and Prospect Mountain wilderness study areas; the Sand Hills/JO Ranch area of critical environmental concern; and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and North Platte River special recreation management areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the development of resources allowing for management activities to dominate the view and remain the major focus of viewer attention. Alternative 3 would emphasize protection of resources and preservation of the existing character of the landscape. Relative to all alternatives, Alternative 3 would allow management activities to be seen, but not attract the attention of the casual observer or dominate the landscape. Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative and would strive for a balance of opportunities to allow some modification while partially retaining the existing character of the landscape. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The VRM-targeted plan amendment will determine the management actions for visual resources on public lands in the decision area and amend the associated decisions in the Rawlins RMP. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the decision area managed as VRM Class IV would increase from five percent (39,180) to 58 percent (430,732 acres). Visual intrusions and high levels of landscape alteration that affect cultural resources and recreation areas would increase compared to current management. Timber harvesting restrictions would be reduced on northeastern forested lands while southern forested lands with potential for commercial harvest would remain in the VRM Class II and III designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110232, 103 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888697242?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 17 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888696699; 14993-3_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888696699?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 14 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696614; 14987-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696614?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 13 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696607; 14987-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 12 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696603; 14987-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696603?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 11 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696595; 14987-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696595?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=unknown&rft.jtitle=CGA+Magazine&rft.atitle=Proud+to+be+a+Partner%3A+CGA-AFOA+Council%2FLe+Conseil+CGA-AAFA+%3A+de+fiers+partenaires&rft.au=Ducie%2C+Tony%2C+FCGA&rft.aulast=Ducie&rft.aufirst=Tony&rft.date=2009-09-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=26&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=CGA+Magazine&rft.issn=0318742X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 10 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696591; 14987-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 9 of 12] T2 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888696485; 14992-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: A Visual Resource Management (VRM) Amendment to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) is proposed to address wind energy development in Carbon County, Wyoming. This amendment is being drafted concurrently with the development of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project EIS. The project would consist of two wind farm sites located within the CCSM wind site testing and monitoring application area, totaling 222,689 acres of public, private, and state land, and application areas for rights-of-way for ancillary facilities. A majority of the CCSM wind site application area is designated as VRM Class III, but a portion of the Sierra Madre site is identified as VRM Class II. Wind energy development typically is not considered to be compatible with VRM Class I; VRM Class II within the foreground/middleground and background distance zones; and VRM Class III within the foreground/middleground zone. VRM Class IV provides for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The BLM has completed a visual resource inventory for the development of a range of alternatives in this project-specific plan amendment. VRM class designations will be considered and analyzed in a future plan review for the remainder of the Rawlins Field Office area. The most prominent land use feature in the planning area is a large swath of land that is divided into a checkerboard pattern of ownership. Visual resources are influenced by a variety of topographic, geologic, hydrological, vegetative, and other characteristics of the region and the excellent air quality allows for mostly unobstructed views. Topography ranges from relatively flat land and low rolling or flat-topped hills to high elevations containing mountain shrub vegetation. The planning area also includes a diverse landscape that supports multiple uses such as wind development, other lands and realty developments, mineral development, livestock grazing, and some commercial timber harvest. The planning area contains 1.2 million acres with high wind potential, 565,390 acres of areas with high and moderate potential for oil and gas, and the 5,670-acre Elk Mountain Forest. Sensitive lands and resources include: the Encampment River Canyon and Prospect Mountain wilderness study areas; the Sand Hills/JO Ranch area of critical environmental concern; and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and North Platte River special recreation management areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the development of resources allowing for management activities to dominate the view and remain the major focus of viewer attention. Alternative 3 would emphasize protection of resources and preservation of the existing character of the landscape. Relative to all alternatives, Alternative 3 would allow management activities to be seen, but not attract the attention of the casual observer or dominate the landscape. Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative and would strive for a balance of opportunities to allow some modification while partially retaining the existing character of the landscape. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The VRM-targeted plan amendment will determine the management actions for visual resources on public lands in the decision area and amend the associated decisions in the Rawlins RMP. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the decision area managed as VRM Class IV would increase from five percent (39,180) to 58 percent (430,732 acres). Visual intrusions and high levels of landscape alteration that affect cultural resources and recreation areas would increase compared to current management. Timber harvesting restrictions would be reduced on northeastern forested lands while southern forested lands with potential for commercial harvest would remain in the VRM Class II and III designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110232, 103 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 8 of 12] T2 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888696483; 14992-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A Visual Resource Management (VRM) Amendment to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) is proposed to address wind energy development in Carbon County, Wyoming. This amendment is being drafted concurrently with the development of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project EIS. The project would consist of two wind farm sites located within the CCSM wind site testing and monitoring application area, totaling 222,689 acres of public, private, and state land, and application areas for rights-of-way for ancillary facilities. A majority of the CCSM wind site application area is designated as VRM Class III, but a portion of the Sierra Madre site is identified as VRM Class II. Wind energy development typically is not considered to be compatible with VRM Class I; VRM Class II within the foreground/middleground and background distance zones; and VRM Class III within the foreground/middleground zone. VRM Class IV provides for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The BLM has completed a visual resource inventory for the development of a range of alternatives in this project-specific plan amendment. VRM class designations will be considered and analyzed in a future plan review for the remainder of the Rawlins Field Office area. The most prominent land use feature in the planning area is a large swath of land that is divided into a checkerboard pattern of ownership. Visual resources are influenced by a variety of topographic, geologic, hydrological, vegetative, and other characteristics of the region and the excellent air quality allows for mostly unobstructed views. Topography ranges from relatively flat land and low rolling or flat-topped hills to high elevations containing mountain shrub vegetation. The planning area also includes a diverse landscape that supports multiple uses such as wind development, other lands and realty developments, mineral development, livestock grazing, and some commercial timber harvest. The planning area contains 1.2 million acres with high wind potential, 565,390 acres of areas with high and moderate potential for oil and gas, and the 5,670-acre Elk Mountain Forest. Sensitive lands and resources include: the Encampment River Canyon and Prospect Mountain wilderness study areas; the Sand Hills/JO Ranch area of critical environmental concern; and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and North Platte River special recreation management areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the development of resources allowing for management activities to dominate the view and remain the major focus of viewer attention. Alternative 3 would emphasize protection of resources and preservation of the existing character of the landscape. Relative to all alternatives, Alternative 3 would allow management activities to be seen, but not attract the attention of the casual observer or dominate the landscape. Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative and would strive for a balance of opportunities to allow some modification while partially retaining the existing character of the landscape. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The VRM-targeted plan amendment will determine the management actions for visual resources on public lands in the decision area and amend the associated decisions in the Rawlins RMP. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the decision area managed as VRM Class IV would increase from five percent (39,180) to 58 percent (430,732 acres). Visual intrusions and high levels of landscape alteration that affect cultural resources and recreation areas would increase compared to current management. Timber harvesting restrictions would be reduced on northeastern forested lands while southern forested lands with potential for commercial harvest would remain in the VRM Class II and III designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110232, 103 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696483?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 7 of 12] T2 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888696477; 14992-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A Visual Resource Management (VRM) Amendment to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) is proposed to address wind energy development in Carbon County, Wyoming. This amendment is being drafted concurrently with the development of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project EIS. The project would consist of two wind farm sites located within the CCSM wind site testing and monitoring application area, totaling 222,689 acres of public, private, and state land, and application areas for rights-of-way for ancillary facilities. A majority of the CCSM wind site application area is designated as VRM Class III, but a portion of the Sierra Madre site is identified as VRM Class II. Wind energy development typically is not considered to be compatible with VRM Class I; VRM Class II within the foreground/middleground and background distance zones; and VRM Class III within the foreground/middleground zone. VRM Class IV provides for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The BLM has completed a visual resource inventory for the development of a range of alternatives in this project-specific plan amendment. VRM class designations will be considered and analyzed in a future plan review for the remainder of the Rawlins Field Office area. The most prominent land use feature in the planning area is a large swath of land that is divided into a checkerboard pattern of ownership. Visual resources are influenced by a variety of topographic, geologic, hydrological, vegetative, and other characteristics of the region and the excellent air quality allows for mostly unobstructed views. Topography ranges from relatively flat land and low rolling or flat-topped hills to high elevations containing mountain shrub vegetation. The planning area also includes a diverse landscape that supports multiple uses such as wind development, other lands and realty developments, mineral development, livestock grazing, and some commercial timber harvest. The planning area contains 1.2 million acres with high wind potential, 565,390 acres of areas with high and moderate potential for oil and gas, and the 5,670-acre Elk Mountain Forest. Sensitive lands and resources include: the Encampment River Canyon and Prospect Mountain wilderness study areas; the Sand Hills/JO Ranch area of critical environmental concern; and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and North Platte River special recreation management areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the development of resources allowing for management activities to dominate the view and remain the major focus of viewer attention. Alternative 3 would emphasize protection of resources and preservation of the existing character of the landscape. Relative to all alternatives, Alternative 3 would allow management activities to be seen, but not attract the attention of the casual observer or dominate the landscape. Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative and would strive for a balance of opportunities to allow some modification while partially retaining the existing character of the landscape. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The VRM-targeted plan amendment will determine the management actions for visual resources on public lands in the decision area and amend the associated decisions in the Rawlins RMP. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the decision area managed as VRM Class IV would increase from five percent (39,180) to 58 percent (430,732 acres). Visual intrusions and high levels of landscape alteration that affect cultural resources and recreation areas would increase compared to current management. Timber harvesting restrictions would be reduced on northeastern forested lands while southern forested lands with potential for commercial harvest would remain in the VRM Class II and III designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110232, 103 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696477?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 6 of 12] T2 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888696474; 14992-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A Visual Resource Management (VRM) Amendment to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) is proposed to address wind energy development in Carbon County, Wyoming. This amendment is being drafted concurrently with the development of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project EIS. The project would consist of two wind farm sites located within the CCSM wind site testing and monitoring application area, totaling 222,689 acres of public, private, and state land, and application areas for rights-of-way for ancillary facilities. A majority of the CCSM wind site application area is designated as VRM Class III, but a portion of the Sierra Madre site is identified as VRM Class II. Wind energy development typically is not considered to be compatible with VRM Class I; VRM Class II within the foreground/middleground and background distance zones; and VRM Class III within the foreground/middleground zone. VRM Class IV provides for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The BLM has completed a visual resource inventory for the development of a range of alternatives in this project-specific plan amendment. VRM class designations will be considered and analyzed in a future plan review for the remainder of the Rawlins Field Office area. The most prominent land use feature in the planning area is a large swath of land that is divided into a checkerboard pattern of ownership. Visual resources are influenced by a variety of topographic, geologic, hydrological, vegetative, and other characteristics of the region and the excellent air quality allows for mostly unobstructed views. Topography ranges from relatively flat land and low rolling or flat-topped hills to high elevations containing mountain shrub vegetation. The planning area also includes a diverse landscape that supports multiple uses such as wind development, other lands and realty developments, mineral development, livestock grazing, and some commercial timber harvest. The planning area contains 1.2 million acres with high wind potential, 565,390 acres of areas with high and moderate potential for oil and gas, and the 5,670-acre Elk Mountain Forest. Sensitive lands and resources include: the Encampment River Canyon and Prospect Mountain wilderness study areas; the Sand Hills/JO Ranch area of critical environmental concern; and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and North Platte River special recreation management areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the development of resources allowing for management activities to dominate the view and remain the major focus of viewer attention. Alternative 3 would emphasize protection of resources and preservation of the existing character of the landscape. Relative to all alternatives, Alternative 3 would allow management activities to be seen, but not attract the attention of the casual observer or dominate the landscape. Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative and would strive for a balance of opportunities to allow some modification while partially retaining the existing character of the landscape. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The VRM-targeted plan amendment will determine the management actions for visual resources on public lands in the decision area and amend the associated decisions in the Rawlins RMP. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the decision area managed as VRM Class IV would increase from five percent (39,180) to 58 percent (430,732 acres). Visual intrusions and high levels of landscape alteration that affect cultural resources and recreation areas would increase compared to current management. Timber harvesting restrictions would be reduced on northeastern forested lands while southern forested lands with potential for commercial harvest would remain in the VRM Class II and III designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110232, 103 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696474?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 5 of 12] T2 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888696470; 14992-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A Visual Resource Management (VRM) Amendment to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) is proposed to address wind energy development in Carbon County, Wyoming. This amendment is being drafted concurrently with the development of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project EIS. The project would consist of two wind farm sites located within the CCSM wind site testing and monitoring application area, totaling 222,689 acres of public, private, and state land, and application areas for rights-of-way for ancillary facilities. A majority of the CCSM wind site application area is designated as VRM Class III, but a portion of the Sierra Madre site is identified as VRM Class II. Wind energy development typically is not considered to be compatible with VRM Class I; VRM Class II within the foreground/middleground and background distance zones; and VRM Class III within the foreground/middleground zone. VRM Class IV provides for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The BLM has completed a visual resource inventory for the development of a range of alternatives in this project-specific plan amendment. VRM class designations will be considered and analyzed in a future plan review for the remainder of the Rawlins Field Office area. The most prominent land use feature in the planning area is a large swath of land that is divided into a checkerboard pattern of ownership. Visual resources are influenced by a variety of topographic, geologic, hydrological, vegetative, and other characteristics of the region and the excellent air quality allows for mostly unobstructed views. Topography ranges from relatively flat land and low rolling or flat-topped hills to high elevations containing mountain shrub vegetation. The planning area also includes a diverse landscape that supports multiple uses such as wind development, other lands and realty developments, mineral development, livestock grazing, and some commercial timber harvest. The planning area contains 1.2 million acres with high wind potential, 565,390 acres of areas with high and moderate potential for oil and gas, and the 5,670-acre Elk Mountain Forest. Sensitive lands and resources include: the Encampment River Canyon and Prospect Mountain wilderness study areas; the Sand Hills/JO Ranch area of critical environmental concern; and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and North Platte River special recreation management areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the development of resources allowing for management activities to dominate the view and remain the major focus of viewer attention. Alternative 3 would emphasize protection of resources and preservation of the existing character of the landscape. Relative to all alternatives, Alternative 3 would allow management activities to be seen, but not attract the attention of the casual observer or dominate the landscape. Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative and would strive for a balance of opportunities to allow some modification while partially retaining the existing character of the landscape. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The VRM-targeted plan amendment will determine the management actions for visual resources on public lands in the decision area and amend the associated decisions in the Rawlins RMP. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the decision area managed as VRM Class IV would increase from five percent (39,180) to 58 percent (430,732 acres). Visual intrusions and high levels of landscape alteration that affect cultural resources and recreation areas would increase compared to current management. Timber harvesting restrictions would be reduced on northeastern forested lands while southern forested lands with potential for commercial harvest would remain in the VRM Class II and III designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110232, 103 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 16 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696465; 14991-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 15 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696461; 14991-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696461?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 14 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696453; 14991-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696453?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 13 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696447; 14991-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696447?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 12 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696444; 14991-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696444?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696324; 14991-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696318; 14991-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696315; 14991-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696310; 14991-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696310?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 20] T2 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 888696305; 14991-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 4 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696278; 14987-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 3 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696256; 14987-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 2 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696250; 14987-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 21 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888695720; 14993-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888695720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 20 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888695718; 14993-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888695718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 19 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888695716; 14993-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888695716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 18 of 25] T2 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 888695711; 14993-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of The Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the proposed 222,689-acre application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. The 105,644-acre Chokecherry site and the 109,916-acre Sierra Madre site are located approximately nine miles apart within the wind site testing and monitoring application area. PCW has obtained a wind easement and entered into an agreement with TOTCO to use the private lands for the wind farms. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility proposed in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management (VRM) direction provided in the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-MW wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the ROW grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact 1,811 to 2,009 acres of water-erodible soils, cross 386 to 541 streams, and result in direct loss of 928 to 2,024 animal unit months of range resources. Habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk would be impacted. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 5,380 to 6,300 bat collisions and 4,612 to 5,400 bird collisions annually. Some of the action alternatives would impact a grizzly special management area and lands with wilderness characteristics. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps over the four-year construction period. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110233, 936 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/005+1430 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/888695711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 16376045; 14992 AB - PURPOSE: A Visual Resource Management (VRM) Amendment to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) is proposed to address wind energy development in Carbon County, Wyoming. This amendment is being drafted concurrently with the development of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project EIS. The project would consist of two wind farm sites located within the CCSM wind site testing and monitoring application area, totaling 222,689 acres of public, private, and state land, and application areas for rights-of-way for ancillary facilities. A majority of the CCSM wind site application area is designated as VRM Class III, but a portion of the Sierra Madre site is identified as VRM Class II. Wind energy development typically is not considered to be compatible with VRM Class I; VRM Class II within the foreground/middleground and background distance zones; and VRM Class III within the foreground/middleground zone. VRM Class IV provides for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The BLM has completed a visual resource inventory for the development of a range of alternatives in this project-specific plan amendment. VRM class designations will be considered and analyzed in a future plan review for the remainder of the Rawlins Field Office area. The most prominent land use feature in the planning area is a large swath of land that is divided into a checkerboard pattern of ownership. Visual resources are influenced by a variety of topographic, geologic, hydrological, vegetative, and other characteristics of the region and the excellent air quality allows for mostly unobstructed views. Topography ranges from relatively flat land and low rolling or flat-topped hills to high elevations containing mountain shrub vegetation. The planning area also includes a diverse landscape that supports multiple uses such as wind development, other lands and realty developments, mineral development, livestock grazing, and some commercial timber harvest. The planning area contains 1.2 million acres with high wind potential, 565,390 acres of areas with high and moderate potential for oil and gas, and the 5,670-acre Elk Mountain Forest. Sensitive lands and resources include: the Encampment River Canyon and Prospect Mountain wilderness study areas; the Sand Hills/JO Ranch area of critical environmental concern; and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and North Platte River special recreation management areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the development of resources allowing for management activities to dominate the view and remain the major focus of viewer attention. Alternative 3 would emphasize protection of resources and preservation of the existing character of the landscape. Relative to all alternatives, Alternative 3 would allow management activities to be seen, but not attract the attention of the casual observer or dominate the landscape. Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative and would strive for a balance of opportunities to allow some modification while partially retaining the existing character of the landscape. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The VRM-targeted plan amendment will determine the management actions for visual resources on public lands in the decision area and amend the associated decisions in the Rawlins RMP. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the decision area managed as VRM Class IV would increase from five percent (39,180) to 58 percent (430,732 acres). Visual intrusions and high levels of landscape alteration that affect cultural resources and recreation areas would increase compared to current management. Timber harvesting restrictions would be reduced on northeastern forested lands while southern forested lands with potential for commercial harvest would remain in the VRM Class II and III designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110232, 103 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16376045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 16373845; 14987 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16373845?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALT WELLS ENERGY PROJECTS, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16372092; 14991 AB - PURPOSE: Three separate geothermal energy and transmission projects in the Salt Wells area of Churchill County, Nevada are proposed. Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Stillwater Field Office to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) across public land. In addition, both Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company have submitted separate geothermal utilization plans or plans of utilization and applications for facility construction permits. The study area encompasses 24,152 acres near Fallon and proposed facilities would be sited on a combination of private property and federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt (MW) geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 125-foot wide ROW for a new transmission line with substations and switching stations. SPPC, also known as NV Energy, proposes to build two switching stations, one 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, two 60-kV electric line folds, and one substation. The Bass Flat switching station would be constructed at the junction of the existing Fort Churchill to Austin transmission line and the SPPC transmission line leading from the existing ENEL geothermal power plant to the Fort Churchill to Austin line. The new Pony Express switching station would be constructed adjacent to the ENEL geothermal power plant. A new Greenwave substation would be constructed on the south side of Sheckler Road in Fallon, and a 22-mile, 230-kV transmission line would connect the Pony Express switching station to the Greenwave substation. Ormat is proposing to develop the Carson Lake binary power plant and substation, the Macari switching station, a 230-kV transmission line between the Carson Lake substation and the Macari switching station, and an electric line fold for the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. The power plant would produce up to 40 MW of electricity and would employ a dry air cooling tower in combination with two types of wet cooling that would require 2,500 to 3,500 gallons of water per minute when operating May through October. These facilities would be developed on a private 80-acre parcel. Up to 13 well pads (in addition to 12 previously approved well pads), associated pipelines, and roads would also be constructed on federal land. Vulcan (now Gradient Resources) is proposing to develop up to four power plants and associated substations at five possible locations for a maximum production of 120 MW. Groundwater wells and geothermal fluid from the geothermal reservoir would be used for cooling water. A 230-kV interconnection transmission line would be constructed to connect the power plants to Vulcans proposed Bunejug switching station and would include an electric line fold to the SPPC 230-kV transmission line. Vulcan would also construct up to 26 well pads and associated wells, roads, and pipelines in addition to 20 previously approved well pads. Six alternatives to the proposed actions are analyzed in this final EIS. A No Action Alternative for each of the proposed actions is also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the construction permits and the electric transmission ROW would allow the applicants to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit geothermal energy to consumers and provide reliable electric capacity to the Fallon area. The projects would help meet Nevada's renewable energy portfolio standard that requires 25 percent of the electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and well drilling would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat, impact wetland areas, and generate emissions and fugitive dust. Construction and operation could impact migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially occurring sensitive species include golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, snowy plover, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Extraction and reinjection of geothermal water could impact flows and water quality at hot and warm springs and seeps. Long-term pumping of geothermal reservoirs could reduce pressures within the deeper geothermal system. Mitigation would be required for impacts to grazing allotments and pastures. Area viewsheds would be impacted by the presence of project facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 110231, 954 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-12 KW - Birds KW - Cooling Systems KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SALT+WELLS+ENERGY+PROJECTS%2C+CHURCHILL+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 69 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884425737; 14972-2_0069 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 69 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884425737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 68 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884425736; 14972-2_0068 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 68 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884425736?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 67 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884425735; 14972-2_0067 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 67 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884425735?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 66 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884425734; 14972-2_0066 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 66 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884425734?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 51 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884425732; 14972-2_0051 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884425732?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 45 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884425731; 14972-2_0045 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884425731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 58 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422214; 14972-2_0058 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422214?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 57 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422211; 14972-2_0057 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422211?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 56 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422209; 14972-2_0056 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422209?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422205; 14972-2_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422205?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422200; 14972-2_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422200?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 60 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422116; 14972-2_0060 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 59 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422115; 14972-2_0059 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422114; 14972-2_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422113; 14972-2_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422112; 14972-2_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 62 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421811; 14972-2_0062 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 61 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421808; 14972-2_0061 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 42 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421799; 14972-2_0042 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 47 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421655; 14972-2_0047 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421648; 14972-2_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421648?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421636; 14972-2_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421636?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 64 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421438; 14972-2_0064 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 64 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421435; 14972-2_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421435?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421431; 14972-2_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 50 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421119; 14972-2_0050 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 49 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421116; 14972-2_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 48 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421112; 14972-2_0048 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 54 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884420885; 14972-2_0054 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884420885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419793; 14972-2_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419779; 14972-2_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419766; 14972-2_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419766?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419757; 14972-2_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419757?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419746; 14972-2_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419735; 14972-2_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419735?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=Vogue&rft.issn=00428000&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419724; 14972-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1924-04-15&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=7&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Vogue&rft.issn=00428000&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419709; 14972-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=unknown&rft.jtitle=Vogue&rft.atitle=Advertisement%3A+I.+Miller+%26amp%3B+Sons%2C+Inc.+%28I.+Miller+%26amp%3B+Sons+Inc.%29&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1924-04-15&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=8&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Vogue&rft.issn=00428000&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 52 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884417397; 14972-2_0052 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884417397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Avogue&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Vogue&rft.atitle=Advertisement&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1924-04-15&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=9&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Vogue&rft.issn=00428000&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884417363; 14972-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884417363?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884417319; 14972-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884417319?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 55 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416790; 14972-2_0055 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416790?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416764; 14972-2_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416764?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=15&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Vogue&rft.issn=00428000&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416722; 14972-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=unknown&rft.jtitle=Vogue&rft.atitle=Advertisement%3A+Cammeyer+%28Cammeyer%29&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1924-04-15&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=16A&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Vogue&rft.issn=00428000&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416668; 14972-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416668?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/The+Vogue+Archive&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1924-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=16C&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Advertisement%3A+Great+Western+Knitting+Company+%28Great+Western+Knitting+Company%29&rft.title=Advertisement%3A+Great+Western+Knitting+Company+%28Great+Western+Knitting+Company%29&rft.issn=00428000&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416625; 14972-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416625?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416534; 14972-2_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 35 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416487; 14972-2_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416487?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416440; 14972-2_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416397; 14972-2_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 40 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416321; 14972-2_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416272; 14972-2_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416272?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416209; 14972-2_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416209?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 44 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416193; 14972-2_0044 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 43 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416143; 14972-2_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415651; 14972-2_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415611; 14972-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415588; 14972-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415563; 14972-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415563?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415547; 14972-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415547?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 46 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415533; 14972-2_0046 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415489; 14972-2_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415489?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415452; 14972-2_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884413857; 14972-2_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884413857?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 70 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409609; 14972-2_0070 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 70 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409609?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WOODWARD AVENUE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, CITY OF DETROIT, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - WOODWARD AVENUE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, CITY OF DETROIT, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 963635883; 14966-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project in Detroit, Michigan are proposed. The study area is located in Wayne County and comprises the Woodward Avenue corridor extending 9.3 miles from downtown Detroit (Downtown), near the Detroit River, north to the State Fairground near 8 Mile Road, and including one-half mile to the east and west of Woodward Avenue. The majority of the study area lies within the city of Detroit, while two miles is within the city of Highland Park. A heavily transit-dependent population along the corridor currently experiences overcrowding, reliability issues, and lack of rapid transit alternatives with the current bus system. Three locally preferred alternatives (LPAs) and a No Build Alternative were evaluated in the draft EIS of January 2011. Under the LPAs, an at-grade LRT system would be constructed entirely within existing rights-of-way on Woodward Avenue from Downtown to 8 Mile Road; it would be fully functional as a stand-alone project but would be designed to accommodate possible future extensions. The combination of two mainline alignment operating options and three Downtown design options, resulted in three variations of the LPA: median-running Alternative A1 with 15 LRT stations; and curb-running Alternatives B2 and B3 with 21 and 18 LRT stations, respectively. Ancillary facilities would include: a vehicle storage maintenance facility (VSMF), for which two potential sites are evaluated; a park and ride lot to be located near the proposed Shoppes at Gateway site at the southeast corner of 8 Mile Road and Woodward Avenue; and traction power substations dispersed along the length of the LPA. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative (Alternative A4), which is a combination of median-running and side-running with 19 LRT stations and eight traction power substations. The LRT would operate in the center median of Woodward Avenue from the State Fairgrounds to Park Avenue/Witherell Street and then transition to curb-running operations. When in the center median, the LRT would run separately from vehicular traffic and may or may not include a physical barrier. The median running segment of Alternative A4 would include 16 stations, whose platforms would be located in the median. The downtown portion would include five stations, two of which would be median-running. Stations would have a conventional canopy over a platform and the electrical system would include overhead wires and poles to support the wires 17 to 22 feet above the street. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve public transit capacity and provide greater mobility options for the Woodward Avenue corridor. Transportation equity would be improved among all travelers and the LRT would encourage new development near stations and could encourage infill redevelopment of underutilized or vacant parcels. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and utility relocations would disrupt traffic and pedestrian travel patterns. Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in adverse effects to 13 historic properties, noise impacts on six noise-sensitive properties, and relocation of one building and one business. Hazardous materials are present on the two potential VSMF sites and one or more contaminated sites exist near almost all proposed LRT stations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 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: 110206, Final EIS and Appendices--347 pages and maps, Responses to Comments and Technical Reports--DVD, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Central Business Districts KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - Michigan KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/963635883?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WOODWARD+AVENUE+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+DETROIT%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=WOODWARD+AVENUE+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+DETROIT%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Climate Change Response Strategy AN - 887099729 AB - According to Climate Change Response Strategy, application of best available climate change science will inform and support adaptation, mitigation, and communication efforts. JF - Natural Resources & Environment AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011///Summer PY - 2011 DA - Summer 2011 SP - 63 CY - Chicago PB - American Bar Association VL - 26 IS - 1 SN - 08823812 KW - Environmental Studies KW - Climate change KW - National parks KW - Parks & recreation areas KW - Facilities management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/887099729?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvscijournals&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Natural+Resources+%26+Environment&rft.atitle=Climate+Change+Response+Strategy&rft.au=Anonymous&rft.aulast=Anonymous&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=63&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Natural+Resources+%26+Environment&rft.issn=08823812&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Copyright - Copyright American Bar Association Summer 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-09-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS COYOTES BAND OF CAHUILLA AND CUPENO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO-HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF BARSTOW, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - LOS COYOTES BAND OF CAHUILLA AND CUPENO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO-HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF BARSTOW, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884411334; 14961-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A 23.1-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a casino and hotel in the City of Barstow, San Bernardino County, California are proposed. The Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians (Tribe) has requested that the Bureau of Indian Affairs take the land, currently held in fee by the Tribe, into federal trust status. Approval of the Tribes gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission may also be required under the proposed action. Economic development opportunities for the Tribe have been limited due to a lack of funds for project development and operation, as well as the fact that the Tribe's existing 25,050-acre reservation lands are remote, environmentally sensitive, and difficult to access. Five alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A, a casino with 88,500 square feet of gaming floor and a 160-room hotel would be developed on the Barstow site just east of Interstate 15. A total of 1,225 surface-level parking spaces and 637 below-ground parking spaces would be provided. Alternative B is the currently proposed project and would involve the development of a reduced casino hotel complex at the Barstow site. The casino would have 57,070 square feet of gaming floor and the hotel tower would have approximately 100 rooms. A total of 1,405 parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative C, a reduced-intensity casino would be developed at a 19-acre site within the Los Coyotes Reservation. Alternative D is a nongaming alternative and would involve the development of a campground facility on 19 acres within the Los Coyotes Reservation. Alternative E is the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that would be used to strengthen the tribal government and establish self-sufficiency. Funds for a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, health and welfare services would improve the quality of life of tribal members. Operation of the complex would provide employment opportunities for the tribal and non-tribal community. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The development of Alternative A or B could have minimal effects to desert tortoise; and operations would have a potentially adverse effect on local and regional air quality as well as traffic. Construction within the Los Coyotes Reservation under Alternative C or D could have moderate adverse effects on wetlands and to the arroyo toad and Stephen's kangaroo rat. All of the action alternatives could have moderate adverse effects on nesting migratory birds. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 460 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110201, Draft EIS--444 pages and maps, Appendices--759 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+COYOTES+BAND+OF+CAHUILLA+AND+CUPENO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO-HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+BARSTOW%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+COYOTES+BAND+OF+CAHUILLA+AND+CUPENO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO-HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+BARSTOW%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS COYOTES BAND OF CAHUILLA AND CUPENO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO-HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF BARSTOW, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - LOS COYOTES BAND OF CAHUILLA AND CUPENO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO-HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF BARSTOW, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884411312; 14961-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A 23.1-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a casino and hotel in the City of Barstow, San Bernardino County, California are proposed. The Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians (Tribe) has requested that the Bureau of Indian Affairs take the land, currently held in fee by the Tribe, into federal trust status. Approval of the Tribes gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission may also be required under the proposed action. Economic development opportunities for the Tribe have been limited due to a lack of funds for project development and operation, as well as the fact that the Tribe's existing 25,050-acre reservation lands are remote, environmentally sensitive, and difficult to access. Five alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A, a casino with 88,500 square feet of gaming floor and a 160-room hotel would be developed on the Barstow site just east of Interstate 15. A total of 1,225 surface-level parking spaces and 637 below-ground parking spaces would be provided. Alternative B is the currently proposed project and would involve the development of a reduced casino hotel complex at the Barstow site. The casino would have 57,070 square feet of gaming floor and the hotel tower would have approximately 100 rooms. A total of 1,405 parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative C, a reduced-intensity casino would be developed at a 19-acre site within the Los Coyotes Reservation. Alternative D is a nongaming alternative and would involve the development of a campground facility on 19 acres within the Los Coyotes Reservation. Alternative E is the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that would be used to strengthen the tribal government and establish self-sufficiency. Funds for a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, health and welfare services would improve the quality of life of tribal members. Operation of the complex would provide employment opportunities for the tribal and non-tribal community. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The development of Alternative A or B could have minimal effects to desert tortoise; and operations would have a potentially adverse effect on local and regional air quality as well as traffic. Construction within the Los Coyotes Reservation under Alternative C or D could have moderate adverse effects on wetlands and to the arroyo toad and Stephen's kangaroo rat. All of the action alternatives could have moderate adverse effects on nesting migratory birds. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 460 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110201, Draft EIS--444 pages and maps, Appendices--759 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411312?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+COYOTES+BAND+OF+CAHUILLA+AND+CUPENO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO-HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+BARSTOW%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+COYOTES+BAND+OF+CAHUILLA+AND+CUPENO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO-HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+BARSTOW%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE: 2012 - CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 216/222 (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE: 2012 - CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 216/222 (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 884411232; 14968-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The offer for lease of certain Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) blocks located in the Central Planning Area (CPA) in the Gulf of Mexico that may contain economically recoverable oil and gas resources is proposed. Lease Sales 216 and 222 are the last remaining sales scheduled for the Central Gulf Planning Area in the 2007 - 2012 OCS Oil and Natural Gas Leasing Program. Consolidated Lease Sale 216/222 will provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on blocks in the Gulf of Mexico OCS in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. This second draft EIS supplements both the multisale final EIS of 2006 and the first supplemental draft EIS of 2008 and incorporates the latest available information following the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill of 2010. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), all unleased blocks within the CPA would be offered for lease with the exception of blocks directly south of Florida and within 100 miles of the Florida coast, and blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap. The CPA sale area encompasses 63 million acres and approximately 37.1 million acres are currently unleased. Alternative B would exclude unleased blocks near biologically sensitive topographic features. Alternative C would exclude unleased blocks within 15 miles of the Baldwin County, Alabama, coast. The proposed action includes existing regulations and proposed lease stipulations designed to reduce environmental risks. Eight lease stipulations are proposed: the topographic features stipulation, the live bottom stipulation, the military areas stipulation, the evacuation stipulation, the coordination stipulation, the blocks south of Baldwin County stipulation, the protected species stipulation, and the Law of the Sea Convention royalty payment stipulation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed lease sale is projected to develop 0.8 to 1.6 billion barrels of oil and 3.3 to 6.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These resources would help the nation in its effort to become independent of foreign sources of fossil fuel energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities related to normal development of the leased resources are expected to be minimal. Coastal water impacts would include increases in turbidity resulting from pipeline installation and navigation canal maintenance, discharges of bilge and ballast water from support vessels, and run-off from shore-based facilities. Offshore water impacts would result from the discharge of drilling muds and cuttings, produced water, and residual chemicals. Accidental events have the potential to impact benthic organisms, marine mammals, sea turtles, federally protected mouse species, coastal and marine birds, the Gulf sturgeon, other fish and essential fish habitat and associated commercial and recreational fishing operations, and coastal recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the first draft supplement, see 07-0013D, Volume 31, Number 1 and 08-0140D, Volume 32, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110208, 920 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011-027 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411232?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE%3A+2012+-+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+216%2F222+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE%3A+2012+-+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+216%2F222+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST CHOCOLATE MOUNTAINS RENEWABLE ENERGY EVALUATION AREA, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - WEST CHOCOLATE MOUNTAINS RENEWABLE ENERGY EVALUATION AREA, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409751; 14959-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The identification of sites for testing and developing solar and wind energy facilities, and the allocation of federal mineral estate for geothermal energy testing and development in the West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy Evaluation Area (REEA) located near Niland in north central Imperial County, California are proposed. The 59,095-acre REEA is south of Riverside County, north of the City of Calipatria, east of the Salton Sea, west of the Chocolate Mountains, and is within the boundaries of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA). Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land within the West Chocolate REEA under consideration for renewable energy projects consists of 20,762 acres of surface lands and 19,162 acres of land with federal mineral estate. The BLM has received one application for geothermal leasing, covering approximately 640 acres, and currently has no solar or wind energy right-of-way (ROW) applications for land within the West Chocolate REEA. This draft EIS evaluates six alternatives and identifies stipulations and mitigation measures that could be applied to future energy projects subject to site specific resource issues. Under Alternative 1 (No Action), the West Chocolate REEA would remain under current management of the CDCA Plan, which makes the land provisionally available for geothermal leasing and for authorization of solar and wind projects. Any future applications for wind or solar projects would be processed on an individual basis, with any necessary plan amendments initiated at that time. Under Alternative 2 (No Development), the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the West Chocolate REEA as unsuitable for geothermal leasing and development and for wind and solar energy development. Alternative 3 would allow development of geothermal, solar, and wind resources to the maximum reasonably foreseeable development scenario. Alternative 4 would allow geothermal development only, while Alternative 5 would emphasize solar energy development with moderate geothermal development and no wind development. Alternative 6, which is the preferred alternative, would emphasize geothermal development with moderate solar development and no wind development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Identification of suitable areas would facilitate a more efficient response to the high interest in siting renewable energy projects on public lands, including geothermal plants, and utility-scale solar and wind projects, and to ensure consistent application of measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, up to 1,026 acres of land could be disturbed from geothermal energy development and an estimated 17,163 acres could be disturbed from solar energy development. Projects within the REEA would fragment and degrade habitat, and remove cover and forage vegetation. Of particular concern would be loss to habitats used by sensitive species, such as the desert tortoise, burrowing owl, flat-tailed horned lizard, Nelsons bighorn sheep, and several bird species. Competitive processing of solar energy applications would be constrained by water usage and potential conflicts to military airspace operations in the vicinity of the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110199, Draft EIS--768 pages, Appendices--434 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-21 KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409751?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+CHOCOLATE+MOUNTAINS+RENEWABLE+ENERGY+EVALUATION+AREA%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WEST+CHOCOLATE+MOUNTAINS+RENEWABLE+ENERGY+EVALUATION+AREA%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST CHOCOLATE MOUNTAINS RENEWABLE ENERGY EVALUATION AREA, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - WEST CHOCOLATE MOUNTAINS RENEWABLE ENERGY EVALUATION AREA, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409742; 14959-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The identification of sites for testing and developing solar and wind energy facilities, and the allocation of federal mineral estate for geothermal energy testing and development in the West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy Evaluation Area (REEA) located near Niland in north central Imperial County, California are proposed. The 59,095-acre REEA is south of Riverside County, north of the City of Calipatria, east of the Salton Sea, west of the Chocolate Mountains, and is within the boundaries of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA). Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land within the West Chocolate REEA under consideration for renewable energy projects consists of 20,762 acres of surface lands and 19,162 acres of land with federal mineral estate. The BLM has received one application for geothermal leasing, covering approximately 640 acres, and currently has no solar or wind energy right-of-way (ROW) applications for land within the West Chocolate REEA. This draft EIS evaluates six alternatives and identifies stipulations and mitigation measures that could be applied to future energy projects subject to site specific resource issues. Under Alternative 1 (No Action), the West Chocolate REEA would remain under current management of the CDCA Plan, which makes the land provisionally available for geothermal leasing and for authorization of solar and wind projects. Any future applications for wind or solar projects would be processed on an individual basis, with any necessary plan amendments initiated at that time. Under Alternative 2 (No Development), the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the West Chocolate REEA as unsuitable for geothermal leasing and development and for wind and solar energy development. Alternative 3 would allow development of geothermal, solar, and wind resources to the maximum reasonably foreseeable development scenario. Alternative 4 would allow geothermal development only, while Alternative 5 would emphasize solar energy development with moderate geothermal development and no wind development. Alternative 6, which is the preferred alternative, would emphasize geothermal development with moderate solar development and no wind development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Identification of suitable areas would facilitate a more efficient response to the high interest in siting renewable energy projects on public lands, including geothermal plants, and utility-scale solar and wind projects, and to ensure consistent application of measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, up to 1,026 acres of land could be disturbed from geothermal energy development and an estimated 17,163 acres could be disturbed from solar energy development. Projects within the REEA would fragment and degrade habitat, and remove cover and forage vegetation. Of particular concern would be loss to habitats used by sensitive species, such as the desert tortoise, burrowing owl, flat-tailed horned lizard, Nelsons bighorn sheep, and several bird species. Competitive processing of solar energy applications would be constrained by water usage and potential conflicts to military airspace operations in the vicinity of the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110199, Draft EIS--768 pages, Appendices--434 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-21 KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+CHOCOLATE+MOUNTAINS+RENEWABLE+ENERGY+EVALUATION+AREA%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WEST+CHOCOLATE+MOUNTAINS+RENEWABLE+ENERGY+EVALUATION+AREA%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE: 2012 - CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 216/222 (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 16387245; 14968 AB - PURPOSE: The offer for lease of certain Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) blocks located in the Central Planning Area (CPA) in the Gulf of Mexico that may contain economically recoverable oil and gas resources is proposed. Lease Sales 216 and 222 are the last remaining sales scheduled for the Central Gulf Planning Area in the 2007 - 2012 OCS Oil and Natural Gas Leasing Program. Consolidated Lease Sale 216/222 will provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on blocks in the Gulf of Mexico OCS in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. This second draft EIS supplements both the multisale final EIS of 2006 and the first supplemental draft EIS of 2008 and incorporates the latest available information following the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill of 2010. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), all unleased blocks within the CPA would be offered for lease with the exception of blocks directly south of Florida and within 100 miles of the Florida coast, and blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap. The CPA sale area encompasses 63 million acres and approximately 37.1 million acres are currently unleased. Alternative B would exclude unleased blocks near biologically sensitive topographic features. Alternative C would exclude unleased blocks within 15 miles of the Baldwin County, Alabama, coast. The proposed action includes existing regulations and proposed lease stipulations designed to reduce environmental risks. Eight lease stipulations are proposed: the topographic features stipulation, the live bottom stipulation, the military areas stipulation, the evacuation stipulation, the coordination stipulation, the blocks south of Baldwin County stipulation, the protected species stipulation, and the Law of the Sea Convention royalty payment stipulation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed lease sale is projected to develop 0.8 to 1.6 billion barrels of oil and 3.3 to 6.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These resources would help the nation in its effort to become independent of foreign sources of fossil fuel energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities related to normal development of the leased resources are expected to be minimal. Coastal water impacts would include increases in turbidity resulting from pipeline installation and navigation canal maintenance, discharges of bilge and ballast water from support vessels, and run-off from shore-based facilities. Offshore water impacts would result from the discharge of drilling muds and cuttings, produced water, and residual chemicals. Accidental events have the potential to impact benthic organisms, marine mammals, sea turtles, federally protected mouse species, coastal and marine birds, the Gulf sturgeon, other fish and essential fish habitat and associated commercial and recreational fishing operations, and coastal recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the first draft supplement, see 07-0013D, Volume 31, Number 1 and 08-0140D, Volume 32, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110208, 920 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011-027 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE%3A+2012+-+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+216%2F222+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE%3A+2012+-+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+216%2F222+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WOODWARD AVENUE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, CITY OF DETROIT, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 16384661; 14966 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project in Detroit, Michigan are proposed. The study area is located in Wayne County and comprises the Woodward Avenue corridor extending 9.3 miles from downtown Detroit (Downtown), near the Detroit River, north to the State Fairground near 8 Mile Road, and including one-half mile to the east and west of Woodward Avenue. The majority of the study area lies within the city of Detroit, while two miles is within the city of Highland Park. A heavily transit-dependent population along the corridor currently experiences overcrowding, reliability issues, and lack of rapid transit alternatives with the current bus system. Three locally preferred alternatives (LPAs) and a No Build Alternative were evaluated in the draft EIS of January 2011. Under the LPAs, an at-grade LRT system would be constructed entirely within existing rights-of-way on Woodward Avenue from Downtown to 8 Mile Road; it would be fully functional as a stand-alone project but would be designed to accommodate possible future extensions. The combination of two mainline alignment operating options and three Downtown design options, resulted in three variations of the LPA: median-running Alternative A1 with 15 LRT stations; and curb-running Alternatives B2 and B3 with 21 and 18 LRT stations, respectively. Ancillary facilities would include: a vehicle storage maintenance facility (VSMF), for which two potential sites are evaluated; a park and ride lot to be located near the proposed Shoppes at Gateway site at the southeast corner of 8 Mile Road and Woodward Avenue; and traction power substations dispersed along the length of the LPA. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative (Alternative A4), which is a combination of median-running and side-running with 19 LRT stations and eight traction power substations. The LRT would operate in the center median of Woodward Avenue from the State Fairgrounds to Park Avenue/Witherell Street and then transition to curb-running operations. When in the center median, the LRT would run separately from vehicular traffic and may or may not include a physical barrier. The median running segment of Alternative A4 would include 16 stations, whose platforms would be located in the median. The downtown portion would include five stations, two of which would be median-running. Stations would have a conventional canopy over a platform and the electrical system would include overhead wires and poles to support the wires 17 to 22 feet above the street. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve public transit capacity and provide greater mobility options for the Woodward Avenue corridor. Transportation equity would be improved among all travelers and the LRT would encourage new development near stations and could encourage infill redevelopment of underutilized or vacant parcels. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and utility relocations would disrupt traffic and pedestrian travel patterns. Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in adverse effects to 13 historic properties, noise impacts on six noise-sensitive properties, and relocation of one building and one business. Hazardous materials are present on the two potential VSMF sites and one or more contaminated sites exist near almost all proposed LRT stations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 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: 110206, Final EIS and Appendices--347 pages and maps, Responses to Comments and Technical Reports--DVD, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Central Business Districts KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - Michigan KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/16384661?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WOODWARD+AVENUE+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+DETROIT%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=WOODWARD+AVENUE+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+DETROIT%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST CHOCOLATE MOUNTAINS RENEWABLE ENERGY EVALUATION AREA, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16369654; 14959 AB - PURPOSE: The identification of sites for testing and developing solar and wind energy facilities, and the allocation of federal mineral estate for geothermal energy testing and development in the West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy Evaluation Area (REEA) located near Niland in north central Imperial County, California are proposed. The 59,095-acre REEA is south of Riverside County, north of the City of Calipatria, east of the Salton Sea, west of the Chocolate Mountains, and is within the boundaries of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA). Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land within the West Chocolate REEA under consideration for renewable energy projects consists of 20,762 acres of surface lands and 19,162 acres of land with federal mineral estate. The BLM has received one application for geothermal leasing, covering approximately 640 acres, and currently has no solar or wind energy right-of-way (ROW) applications for land within the West Chocolate REEA. This draft EIS evaluates six alternatives and identifies stipulations and mitigation measures that could be applied to future energy projects subject to site specific resource issues. Under Alternative 1 (No Action), the West Chocolate REEA would remain under current management of the CDCA Plan, which makes the land provisionally available for geothermal leasing and for authorization of solar and wind projects. Any future applications for wind or solar projects would be processed on an individual basis, with any necessary plan amendments initiated at that time. Under Alternative 2 (No Development), the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the West Chocolate REEA as unsuitable for geothermal leasing and development and for wind and solar energy development. Alternative 3 would allow development of geothermal, solar, and wind resources to the maximum reasonably foreseeable development scenario. Alternative 4 would allow geothermal development only, while Alternative 5 would emphasize solar energy development with moderate geothermal development and no wind development. Alternative 6, which is the preferred alternative, would emphasize geothermal development with moderate solar development and no wind development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Identification of suitable areas would facilitate a more efficient response to the high interest in siting renewable energy projects on public lands, including geothermal plants, and utility-scale solar and wind projects, and to ensure consistent application of measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, up to 1,026 acres of land could be disturbed from geothermal energy development and an estimated 17,163 acres could be disturbed from solar energy development. Projects within the REEA would fragment and degrade habitat, and remove cover and forage vegetation. Of particular concern would be loss to habitats used by sensitive species, such as the desert tortoise, burrowing owl, flat-tailed horned lizard, Nelsons bighorn sheep, and several bird species. Competitive processing of solar energy applications would be constrained by water usage and potential conflicts to military airspace operations in the vicinity of the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110199, Draft EIS--768 pages, Appendices--434 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-21 KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16369654?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+CHOCOLATE+MOUNTAINS+RENEWABLE+ENERGY+EVALUATION+AREA%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WEST+CHOCOLATE+MOUNTAINS+RENEWABLE+ENERGY+EVALUATION+AREA%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%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, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 10 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411426; 14950-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 9 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411418; 14950-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 8 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411410; 14950-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411410?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 7 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411404; 14950-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411404?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 6 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411395; 14950-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 5 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411386; 14950-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411386?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 4 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411379; 14950-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411379?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 15 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411102; 14950-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 14 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411092; 14950-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 13 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411086; 14950-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 12 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411077; 14950-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411077?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 11 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411070; 14950-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 3 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411059; 14950-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 2 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411052; 14950-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 1 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411043; 14950-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 16371066; 14950 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16371066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409718; 14944-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409715; 14944-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409715?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409713; 14944-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409713?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409711; 14944-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409709; 14944-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409707; 14944-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409707?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409704; 14944-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409704?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409701; 14944-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409695; 14944-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409695?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. AN - 884409693; 14946-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A strategic plan for the regulation and management of non-federal oil and gas operations over the next 15 years in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (NRRA) and Obed Wild and Scenic River (WSR) is proposed. The NRRA encompasses 125,000 acres on the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee and Kentucky, 70 highway miles northwest of Knoxville, Tennessee. The Obed WSR encompasses 5,056 acres in Morgan and Cumberland Counties in Tennessee on the Cumberland Plateau, 20 to 30 miles south and west of the Big South Fork NRRA. Currently, there are more than 300 oil and gas wells within the Big South Fork NRRA, although no new wells have been drilled since about 1990. Within the Obed WSR, oil and gas exploration is limited to directional drilling from outside the boundary. However, there are seven oil and gas wells in Obed WSR, including two plugged and abandoned wells. While the National Park Service (NPS) has comprehensive regulations governing nonfederal oil and gas development in parks, the Service does not have a comprehensive plan guiding oil and gas activities within the parks and limited ability to proactively communicate and enforce applicable regulations. Many of the past and existing oil and gas operations in these NPS units are adversely impacting resources and values, human health and safety, and visitor use and experience. Also, many are not in compliance with federal and state regulations, most notably, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 9 Subpart B. Three alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A (the No Action Alternative), the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would be limited in its ability to conduct inspections and monitoring and would defer to the state to notify operators about compliance issues. Under Alternative B, the NPS would proactively pursue enforcement of the 9B regulations and plans of operations and provide clear communication with the public and operators about current legal and policy requirements. For current operations, the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would conduct increased inspections and monitoring and identify sites that are found to be impacting, or threatening to impact, park resources beyond the operations area to bring these sites into compliance. The park would use the oil and gas management plan to share information with the public about regulatory requirements, to seek out operators to ensure information is communicated clearly and effectively, and to focus on implementation of the regulatory framework. A new management framework for completing compliance processes necessary for plugging and reclamation of wells would provide a method for evaluating the compliance needs for future site-specific projects. Priority sites for plugging and reclamation would be identified using criteria described in the plan. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would implement the same type of management described in Alternative B, and also would designate special management areas (SMAs) to protect park resources and values in areas particularly susceptible to adverse impacts from oil and gas development. Operating stipulations would be applied in the SMAs to protect the resources and values of the park units unless other mitigation measures were specifically authorized in an approved plan of operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A programmatic management plan would clearly define a strategy, and provide guidance to ensure that activities undertaken by owners and operators of private oil and gas rights, as well as activities undertaken by the NPS, are conducted in a manner that protects the resources, visitor use and experience, and human health and safety in the park units. Owners and operators of private oil and gas rights would be provided reasonable access for exploration, production, maintenance, and surface reclamation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development would continue to create negligible to moderate adverse impacts on soils, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife; but the chance of major adverse impacts would be reduced due to increased monitoring and inspections. Potential adverse socioeconomic impacts from implementation of the plan would be long-term and negligible. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110186, 668 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-08 KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Wells KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Big South Fork River KW - Kentucky KW - Obed River KW - Tennessee KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409693?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. AN - 884409691; 14946-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A strategic plan for the regulation and management of non-federal oil and gas operations over the next 15 years in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (NRRA) and Obed Wild and Scenic River (WSR) is proposed. The NRRA encompasses 125,000 acres on the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee and Kentucky, 70 highway miles northwest of Knoxville, Tennessee. The Obed WSR encompasses 5,056 acres in Morgan and Cumberland Counties in Tennessee on the Cumberland Plateau, 20 to 30 miles south and west of the Big South Fork NRRA. Currently, there are more than 300 oil and gas wells within the Big South Fork NRRA, although no new wells have been drilled since about 1990. Within the Obed WSR, oil and gas exploration is limited to directional drilling from outside the boundary. However, there are seven oil and gas wells in Obed WSR, including two plugged and abandoned wells. While the National Park Service (NPS) has comprehensive regulations governing nonfederal oil and gas development in parks, the Service does not have a comprehensive plan guiding oil and gas activities within the parks and limited ability to proactively communicate and enforce applicable regulations. Many of the past and existing oil and gas operations in these NPS units are adversely impacting resources and values, human health and safety, and visitor use and experience. Also, many are not in compliance with federal and state regulations, most notably, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 9 Subpart B. Three alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A (the No Action Alternative), the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would be limited in its ability to conduct inspections and monitoring and would defer to the state to notify operators about compliance issues. Under Alternative B, the NPS would proactively pursue enforcement of the 9B regulations and plans of operations and provide clear communication with the public and operators about current legal and policy requirements. For current operations, the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would conduct increased inspections and monitoring and identify sites that are found to be impacting, or threatening to impact, park resources beyond the operations area to bring these sites into compliance. The park would use the oil and gas management plan to share information with the public about regulatory requirements, to seek out operators to ensure information is communicated clearly and effectively, and to focus on implementation of the regulatory framework. A new management framework for completing compliance processes necessary for plugging and reclamation of wells would provide a method for evaluating the compliance needs for future site-specific projects. Priority sites for plugging and reclamation would be identified using criteria described in the plan. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would implement the same type of management described in Alternative B, and also would designate special management areas (SMAs) to protect park resources and values in areas particularly susceptible to adverse impacts from oil and gas development. Operating stipulations would be applied in the SMAs to protect the resources and values of the park units unless other mitigation measures were specifically authorized in an approved plan of operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A programmatic management plan would clearly define a strategy, and provide guidance to ensure that activities undertaken by owners and operators of private oil and gas rights, as well as activities undertaken by the NPS, are conducted in a manner that protects the resources, visitor use and experience, and human health and safety in the park units. Owners and operators of private oil and gas rights would be provided reasonable access for exploration, production, maintenance, and surface reclamation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development would continue to create negligible to moderate adverse impacts on soils, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife; but the chance of major adverse impacts would be reduced due to increased monitoring and inspections. Potential adverse socioeconomic impacts from implementation of the plan would be long-term and negligible. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110186, 668 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-08 KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Wells KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Big South Fork River KW - Kentucky KW - Obed River KW - Tennessee KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409691?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. AN - 884409687; 14946-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A strategic plan for the regulation and management of non-federal oil and gas operations over the next 15 years in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (NRRA) and Obed Wild and Scenic River (WSR) is proposed. The NRRA encompasses 125,000 acres on the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee and Kentucky, 70 highway miles northwest of Knoxville, Tennessee. The Obed WSR encompasses 5,056 acres in Morgan and Cumberland Counties in Tennessee on the Cumberland Plateau, 20 to 30 miles south and west of the Big South Fork NRRA. Currently, there are more than 300 oil and gas wells within the Big South Fork NRRA, although no new wells have been drilled since about 1990. Within the Obed WSR, oil and gas exploration is limited to directional drilling from outside the boundary. However, there are seven oil and gas wells in Obed WSR, including two plugged and abandoned wells. While the National Park Service (NPS) has comprehensive regulations governing nonfederal oil and gas development in parks, the Service does not have a comprehensive plan guiding oil and gas activities within the parks and limited ability to proactively communicate and enforce applicable regulations. Many of the past and existing oil and gas operations in these NPS units are adversely impacting resources and values, human health and safety, and visitor use and experience. Also, many are not in compliance with federal and state regulations, most notably, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 9 Subpart B. Three alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A (the No Action Alternative), the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would be limited in its ability to conduct inspections and monitoring and would defer to the state to notify operators about compliance issues. Under Alternative B, the NPS would proactively pursue enforcement of the 9B regulations and plans of operations and provide clear communication with the public and operators about current legal and policy requirements. For current operations, the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would conduct increased inspections and monitoring and identify sites that are found to be impacting, or threatening to impact, park resources beyond the operations area to bring these sites into compliance. The park would use the oil and gas management plan to share information with the public about regulatory requirements, to seek out operators to ensure information is communicated clearly and effectively, and to focus on implementation of the regulatory framework. A new management framework for completing compliance processes necessary for plugging and reclamation of wells would provide a method for evaluating the compliance needs for future site-specific projects. Priority sites for plugging and reclamation would be identified using criteria described in the plan. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would implement the same type of management described in Alternative B, and also would designate special management areas (SMAs) to protect park resources and values in areas particularly susceptible to adverse impacts from oil and gas development. Operating stipulations would be applied in the SMAs to protect the resources and values of the park units unless other mitigation measures were specifically authorized in an approved plan of operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A programmatic management plan would clearly define a strategy, and provide guidance to ensure that activities undertaken by owners and operators of private oil and gas rights, as well as activities undertaken by the NPS, are conducted in a manner that protects the resources, visitor use and experience, and human health and safety in the park units. Owners and operators of private oil and gas rights would be provided reasonable access for exploration, production, maintenance, and surface reclamation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development would continue to create negligible to moderate adverse impacts on soils, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife; but the chance of major adverse impacts would be reduced due to increased monitoring and inspections. Potential adverse socioeconomic impacts from implementation of the plan would be long-term and negligible. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110186, 668 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-08 KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Wells KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Big South Fork River KW - Kentucky KW - Obed River KW - Tennessee KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409687?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. AN - 884409685; 14946-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A strategic plan for the regulation and management of non-federal oil and gas operations over the next 15 years in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (NRRA) and Obed Wild and Scenic River (WSR) is proposed. The NRRA encompasses 125,000 acres on the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee and Kentucky, 70 highway miles northwest of Knoxville, Tennessee. The Obed WSR encompasses 5,056 acres in Morgan and Cumberland Counties in Tennessee on the Cumberland Plateau, 20 to 30 miles south and west of the Big South Fork NRRA. Currently, there are more than 300 oil and gas wells within the Big South Fork NRRA, although no new wells have been drilled since about 1990. Within the Obed WSR, oil and gas exploration is limited to directional drilling from outside the boundary. However, there are seven oil and gas wells in Obed WSR, including two plugged and abandoned wells. While the National Park Service (NPS) has comprehensive regulations governing nonfederal oil and gas development in parks, the Service does not have a comprehensive plan guiding oil and gas activities within the parks and limited ability to proactively communicate and enforce applicable regulations. Many of the past and existing oil and gas operations in these NPS units are adversely impacting resources and values, human health and safety, and visitor use and experience. Also, many are not in compliance with federal and state regulations, most notably, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 9 Subpart B. Three alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A (the No Action Alternative), the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would be limited in its ability to conduct inspections and monitoring and would defer to the state to notify operators about compliance issues. Under Alternative B, the NPS would proactively pursue enforcement of the 9B regulations and plans of operations and provide clear communication with the public and operators about current legal and policy requirements. For current operations, the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would conduct increased inspections and monitoring and identify sites that are found to be impacting, or threatening to impact, park resources beyond the operations area to bring these sites into compliance. The park would use the oil and gas management plan to share information with the public about regulatory requirements, to seek out operators to ensure information is communicated clearly and effectively, and to focus on implementation of the regulatory framework. A new management framework for completing compliance processes necessary for plugging and reclamation of wells would provide a method for evaluating the compliance needs for future site-specific projects. Priority sites for plugging and reclamation would be identified using criteria described in the plan. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would implement the same type of management described in Alternative B, and also would designate special management areas (SMAs) to protect park resources and values in areas particularly susceptible to adverse impacts from oil and gas development. Operating stipulations would be applied in the SMAs to protect the resources and values of the park units unless other mitigation measures were specifically authorized in an approved plan of operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A programmatic management plan would clearly define a strategy, and provide guidance to ensure that activities undertaken by owners and operators of private oil and gas rights, as well as activities undertaken by the NPS, are conducted in a manner that protects the resources, visitor use and experience, and human health and safety in the park units. Owners and operators of private oil and gas rights would be provided reasonable access for exploration, production, maintenance, and surface reclamation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development would continue to create negligible to moderate adverse impacts on soils, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife; but the chance of major adverse impacts would be reduced due to increased monitoring and inspections. Potential adverse socioeconomic impacts from implementation of the plan would be long-term and negligible. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110186, 668 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-08 KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Wells KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Big South Fork River KW - Kentucky KW - Obed River KW - Tennessee KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409685?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. AN - 884409681; 14946-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A strategic plan for the regulation and management of non-federal oil and gas operations over the next 15 years in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (NRRA) and Obed Wild and Scenic River (WSR) is proposed. The NRRA encompasses 125,000 acres on the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee and Kentucky, 70 highway miles northwest of Knoxville, Tennessee. The Obed WSR encompasses 5,056 acres in Morgan and Cumberland Counties in Tennessee on the Cumberland Plateau, 20 to 30 miles south and west of the Big South Fork NRRA. Currently, there are more than 300 oil and gas wells within the Big South Fork NRRA, although no new wells have been drilled since about 1990. Within the Obed WSR, oil and gas exploration is limited to directional drilling from outside the boundary. However, there are seven oil and gas wells in Obed WSR, including two plugged and abandoned wells. While the National Park Service (NPS) has comprehensive regulations governing nonfederal oil and gas development in parks, the Service does not have a comprehensive plan guiding oil and gas activities within the parks and limited ability to proactively communicate and enforce applicable regulations. Many of the past and existing oil and gas operations in these NPS units are adversely impacting resources and values, human health and safety, and visitor use and experience. Also, many are not in compliance with federal and state regulations, most notably, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 9 Subpart B. Three alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A (the No Action Alternative), the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would be limited in its ability to conduct inspections and monitoring and would defer to the state to notify operators about compliance issues. Under Alternative B, the NPS would proactively pursue enforcement of the 9B regulations and plans of operations and provide clear communication with the public and operators about current legal and policy requirements. For current operations, the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would conduct increased inspections and monitoring and identify sites that are found to be impacting, or threatening to impact, park resources beyond the operations area to bring these sites into compliance. The park would use the oil and gas management plan to share information with the public about regulatory requirements, to seek out operators to ensure information is communicated clearly and effectively, and to focus on implementation of the regulatory framework. A new management framework for completing compliance processes necessary for plugging and reclamation of wells would provide a method for evaluating the compliance needs for future site-specific projects. Priority sites for plugging and reclamation would be identified using criteria described in the plan. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would implement the same type of management described in Alternative B, and also would designate special management areas (SMAs) to protect park resources and values in areas particularly susceptible to adverse impacts from oil and gas development. Operating stipulations would be applied in the SMAs to protect the resources and values of the park units unless other mitigation measures were specifically authorized in an approved plan of operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A programmatic management plan would clearly define a strategy, and provide guidance to ensure that activities undertaken by owners and operators of private oil and gas rights, as well as activities undertaken by the NPS, are conducted in a manner that protects the resources, visitor use and experience, and human health and safety in the park units. Owners and operators of private oil and gas rights would be provided reasonable access for exploration, production, maintenance, and surface reclamation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development would continue to create negligible to moderate adverse impacts on soils, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife; but the chance of major adverse impacts would be reduced due to increased monitoring and inspections. Potential adverse socioeconomic impacts from implementation of the plan would be long-term and negligible. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110186, 668 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-08 KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Wells KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Big South Fork River KW - Kentucky KW - Obed River KW - Tennessee KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409681?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. AN - 884409679; 14946-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A strategic plan for the regulation and management of non-federal oil and gas operations over the next 15 years in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (NRRA) and Obed Wild and Scenic River (WSR) is proposed. The NRRA encompasses 125,000 acres on the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee and Kentucky, 70 highway miles northwest of Knoxville, Tennessee. The Obed WSR encompasses 5,056 acres in Morgan and Cumberland Counties in Tennessee on the Cumberland Plateau, 20 to 30 miles south and west of the Big South Fork NRRA. Currently, there are more than 300 oil and gas wells within the Big South Fork NRRA, although no new wells have been drilled since about 1990. Within the Obed WSR, oil and gas exploration is limited to directional drilling from outside the boundary. However, there are seven oil and gas wells in Obed WSR, including two plugged and abandoned wells. While the National Park Service (NPS) has comprehensive regulations governing nonfederal oil and gas development in parks, the Service does not have a comprehensive plan guiding oil and gas activities within the parks and limited ability to proactively communicate and enforce applicable regulations. Many of the past and existing oil and gas operations in these NPS units are adversely impacting resources and values, human health and safety, and visitor use and experience. Also, many are not in compliance with federal and state regulations, most notably, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 9 Subpart B. Three alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A (the No Action Alternative), the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would be limited in its ability to conduct inspections and monitoring and would defer to the state to notify operators about compliance issues. Under Alternative B, the NPS would proactively pursue enforcement of the 9B regulations and plans of operations and provide clear communication with the public and operators about current legal and policy requirements. For current operations, the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would conduct increased inspections and monitoring and identify sites that are found to be impacting, or threatening to impact, park resources beyond the operations area to bring these sites into compliance. The park would use the oil and gas management plan to share information with the public about regulatory requirements, to seek out operators to ensure information is communicated clearly and effectively, and to focus on implementation of the regulatory framework. A new management framework for completing compliance processes necessary for plugging and reclamation of wells would provide a method for evaluating the compliance needs for future site-specific projects. Priority sites for plugging and reclamation would be identified using criteria described in the plan. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would implement the same type of management described in Alternative B, and also would designate special management areas (SMAs) to protect park resources and values in areas particularly susceptible to adverse impacts from oil and gas development. Operating stipulations would be applied in the SMAs to protect the resources and values of the park units unless other mitigation measures were specifically authorized in an approved plan of operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A programmatic management plan would clearly define a strategy, and provide guidance to ensure that activities undertaken by owners and operators of private oil and gas rights, as well as activities undertaken by the NPS, are conducted in a manner that protects the resources, visitor use and experience, and human health and safety in the park units. Owners and operators of private oil and gas rights would be provided reasonable access for exploration, production, maintenance, and surface reclamation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development would continue to create negligible to moderate adverse impacts on soils, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife; but the chance of major adverse impacts would be reduced due to increased monitoring and inspections. Potential adverse socioeconomic impacts from implementation of the plan would be long-term and negligible. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110186, 668 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-08 KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Wells KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Big South Fork River KW - Kentucky KW - Obed River KW - Tennessee KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. AN - 884409344; 14946-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A strategic plan for the regulation and management of non-federal oil and gas operations over the next 15 years in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (NRRA) and Obed Wild and Scenic River (WSR) is proposed. The NRRA encompasses 125,000 acres on the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee and Kentucky, 70 highway miles northwest of Knoxville, Tennessee. The Obed WSR encompasses 5,056 acres in Morgan and Cumberland Counties in Tennessee on the Cumberland Plateau, 20 to 30 miles south and west of the Big South Fork NRRA. Currently, there are more than 300 oil and gas wells within the Big South Fork NRRA, although no new wells have been drilled since about 1990. Within the Obed WSR, oil and gas exploration is limited to directional drilling from outside the boundary. However, there are seven oil and gas wells in Obed WSR, including two plugged and abandoned wells. While the National Park Service (NPS) has comprehensive regulations governing nonfederal oil and gas development in parks, the Service does not have a comprehensive plan guiding oil and gas activities within the parks and limited ability to proactively communicate and enforce applicable regulations. Many of the past and existing oil and gas operations in these NPS units are adversely impacting resources and values, human health and safety, and visitor use and experience. Also, many are not in compliance with federal and state regulations, most notably, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 9 Subpart B. Three alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A (the No Action Alternative), the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would be limited in its ability to conduct inspections and monitoring and would defer to the state to notify operators about compliance issues. Under Alternative B, the NPS would proactively pursue enforcement of the 9B regulations and plans of operations and provide clear communication with the public and operators about current legal and policy requirements. For current operations, the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would conduct increased inspections and monitoring and identify sites that are found to be impacting, or threatening to impact, park resources beyond the operations area to bring these sites into compliance. The park would use the oil and gas management plan to share information with the public about regulatory requirements, to seek out operators to ensure information is communicated clearly and effectively, and to focus on implementation of the regulatory framework. A new management framework for completing compliance processes necessary for plugging and reclamation of wells would provide a method for evaluating the compliance needs for future site-specific projects. Priority sites for plugging and reclamation would be identified using criteria described in the plan. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would implement the same type of management described in Alternative B, and also would designate special management areas (SMAs) to protect park resources and values in areas particularly susceptible to adverse impacts from oil and gas development. Operating stipulations would be applied in the SMAs to protect the resources and values of the park units unless other mitigation measures were specifically authorized in an approved plan of operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A programmatic management plan would clearly define a strategy, and provide guidance to ensure that activities undertaken by owners and operators of private oil and gas rights, as well as activities undertaken by the NPS, are conducted in a manner that protects the resources, visitor use and experience, and human health and safety in the park units. Owners and operators of private oil and gas rights would be provided reasonable access for exploration, production, maintenance, and surface reclamation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development would continue to create negligible to moderate adverse impacts on soils, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife; but the chance of major adverse impacts would be reduced due to increased monitoring and inspections. Potential adverse socioeconomic impacts from implementation of the plan would be long-term and negligible. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110186, 668 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-08 KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Wells KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Big South Fork River KW - Kentucky KW - Obed River KW - Tennessee KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409344?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. AN - 884409333; 14946-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A strategic plan for the regulation and management of non-federal oil and gas operations over the next 15 years in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (NRRA) and Obed Wild and Scenic River (WSR) is proposed. The NRRA encompasses 125,000 acres on the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee and Kentucky, 70 highway miles northwest of Knoxville, Tennessee. The Obed WSR encompasses 5,056 acres in Morgan and Cumberland Counties in Tennessee on the Cumberland Plateau, 20 to 30 miles south and west of the Big South Fork NRRA. Currently, there are more than 300 oil and gas wells within the Big South Fork NRRA, although no new wells have been drilled since about 1990. Within the Obed WSR, oil and gas exploration is limited to directional drilling from outside the boundary. However, there are seven oil and gas wells in Obed WSR, including two plugged and abandoned wells. While the National Park Service (NPS) has comprehensive regulations governing nonfederal oil and gas development in parks, the Service does not have a comprehensive plan guiding oil and gas activities within the parks and limited ability to proactively communicate and enforce applicable regulations. Many of the past and existing oil and gas operations in these NPS units are adversely impacting resources and values, human health and safety, and visitor use and experience. Also, many are not in compliance with federal and state regulations, most notably, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 9 Subpart B. Three alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A (the No Action Alternative), the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would be limited in its ability to conduct inspections and monitoring and would defer to the state to notify operators about compliance issues. Under Alternative B, the NPS would proactively pursue enforcement of the 9B regulations and plans of operations and provide clear communication with the public and operators about current legal and policy requirements. For current operations, the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would conduct increased inspections and monitoring and identify sites that are found to be impacting, or threatening to impact, park resources beyond the operations area to bring these sites into compliance. The park would use the oil and gas management plan to share information with the public about regulatory requirements, to seek out operators to ensure information is communicated clearly and effectively, and to focus on implementation of the regulatory framework. A new management framework for completing compliance processes necessary for plugging and reclamation of wells would provide a method for evaluating the compliance needs for future site-specific projects. Priority sites for plugging and reclamation would be identified using criteria described in the plan. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would implement the same type of management described in Alternative B, and also would designate special management areas (SMAs) to protect park resources and values in areas particularly susceptible to adverse impacts from oil and gas development. Operating stipulations would be applied in the SMAs to protect the resources and values of the park units unless other mitigation measures were specifically authorized in an approved plan of operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A programmatic management plan would clearly define a strategy, and provide guidance to ensure that activities undertaken by owners and operators of private oil and gas rights, as well as activities undertaken by the NPS, are conducted in a manner that protects the resources, visitor use and experience, and human health and safety in the park units. Owners and operators of private oil and gas rights would be provided reasonable access for exploration, production, maintenance, and surface reclamation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development would continue to create negligible to moderate adverse impacts on soils, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife; but the chance of major adverse impacts would be reduced due to increased monitoring and inspections. Potential adverse socioeconomic impacts from implementation of the plan would be long-term and negligible. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110186, 668 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-08 KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Wells KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Big South Fork River KW - Kentucky KW - Obed River KW - Tennessee KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876222529; 14944 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876222529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 53 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879469069; 14937-6_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879469069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 135 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468550; 14937-6_0135 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 135 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468550?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 133 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468409; 14937-6_0133 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 133 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 95 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468405; 14937-6_0095 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 95 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 55 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468394; 14937-6_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 86 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468380; 14937-6_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 86 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 81 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468292; 14937-6_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 81 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 80 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468281; 14937-6_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 80 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468281?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 77 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468270; 14937-6_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 77 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 76 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468249; 14937-6_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 76 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 74 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468181; 14937-6_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 74 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468181?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 73 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468156; 14937-6_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 73 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 132 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467693; 14937-6_0132 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 132 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467693?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 100 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467053; 14937-6_0100 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 100 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 98 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467051; 14937-6_0098 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 98 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 123 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467050; 14937-6_0123 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 123 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 87 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467049; 14937-6_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 87 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 121 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467048; 14937-6_0121 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 121 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 83 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467047; 14937-6_0083 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 83 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 111 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467046; 14937-6_0111 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 111 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 110 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467045; 14937-6_0110 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 110 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 225 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467043; 14937-6_0225 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 225 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 127 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467042; 14937-6_0127 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 127 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 126 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467041; 14937-6_0126 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 126 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 131 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467040; 14937-6_0131 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 131 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 122 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467039; 14937-6_0122 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 122 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 117 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467038; 14937-6_0117 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 117 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467038?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 97 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467037; 14937-6_0097 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 97 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 112 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467036; 14937-6_0112 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 112 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 82 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467034; 14937-6_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 82 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467034?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 58 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467031; 14937-6_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 85 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467029; 14937-6_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 85 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 84 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467028; 14937-6_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 84 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 88 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467026; 14937-6_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 88 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 125 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467025; 14937-6_0125 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 125 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 75 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467024; 14937-6_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 75 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 120 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467023; 14937-6_0120 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 120 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 72 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467022; 14937-6_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 72 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 114 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467019; 14937-6_0114 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 114 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467019?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 129 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467017; 14937-6_0129 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 129 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 71 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467016; 14937-6_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 71 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 16 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879467015; 14941-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 15 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879467014; 14941-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467014?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 124 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467013; 14937-6_0124 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 124 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 6 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879467012; 14941-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 5 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879467010; 14941-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 4 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879467009; 14941-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 3 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879467008; 14941-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 2 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879467007; 14941-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 102 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467006; 14937-6_0102 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 102 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 106 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467005; 14937-6_0106 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 106 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467005?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 1 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879467004; 14941-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 116 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467003; 14937-6_0116 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 116 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467003?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RICE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - RICE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 879467002; 14943-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of transmission interconnection services and the designation of a new corridor for a 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line which would facilitate the development of the Rice Solar Energy Project (RSEP) in eastern Riverside County, California are proposed. On December 15, 2010, the California Energy Commission issued a conditional license to Rice Solar Energy, LLC (RSE) for the construction and operation of the 150-megawatt (MW) solar electric power plant on previously disturbed private land. The proposed projects new 10-mile long 230-kV generator tie-line, electric substation, and access road would be located on public lands and thus require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. RSE has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed plant which would be located in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert near State Route 62 (SR 62), 40 miles northwest of Blythe, California, and 15 miles west of Vidal Junction, California. The facility would utilize SolarReserve's concentrating solar power technology, and be equipped with an integral storage system. The technology generates power from sunlight by focusing energy from a field of sun-tracking mirrors called heliostats onto a central receiver. Liquid salt is circulated through the receiver collecting the energy gathered from the sun and is then routed to an insulated storage tank where it is stored with minimal energy losses. When electricity is to be generated, the hot salt is routed to heat exchangers to produce steam used to generate electricity in a conventional steam turbine cycle. The salt is then sent to the cold salt storage tank, ready to be reheated by the sun and reused the following day. The draft EIS of October, 2010 evaluated the proposed project, a No Action Alternative, a reduced acreage alternative, and two alternative sites. The North of Desert Center Alternative would reduce impacts to cultural resources associated with Rice Army Airfield; and the SR 62/Rice Valley Road Alternative would reduce wildlife habitat impacts and access road construction requirements. This abbreviated final EIS identifies Western Area Power Administration's preferred alternative, which is to provide the transmission interconnection to the plant facilities as proposed, and includes public and agency comments with responses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plant would provide 450,000 MW-hours of cost-competitive renewable energy power and help to meet the policy goals of California to produce 33 percent of the states electricity by renewable sources by 2020, and the federal goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025. Hundreds of construction jobs would be available over a 30-month construction period and 50 jobs during operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate or degrade native vegetation and cause temporary or long-term effects to contiguous habitat north of the solar generator site and along the transmission line alignments. The proposed project would likely have adverse effects on the threatened desert tortoise through direct loss of habitat, increased habitat fragmentation, and take of individuals. Construction and operation have potential to eliminate foraging habitat within range of known nesting territories of golden eagles and other raptors and would create flight collision, electrocution, and/or incineration hazards. The heliostat field and 653-foot-high central tower would cause visual impacts, particularly to motorists on SR 62, and to visitors to wilderness areas and Joshua Tree National Park. Night light pollution could also become cumulatively considerable. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0301D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110182, 114 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0439 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Sources KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RICE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RICE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 91 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467001; 14937-6_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 91 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 93 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467000; 14937-6_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 93 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 113 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466999; 14937-6_0113 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 113 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 79 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466998; 14937-6_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 79 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 108 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466997; 14937-6_0108 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 108 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 78 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466996; 14937-6_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 78 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466996?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 103 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466995; 14937-6_0103 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 103 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 128 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466994; 14937-6_0128 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 128 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 119 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466993; 14937-6_0119 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 119 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466993?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 115 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466991; 14937-6_0115 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 115 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 105 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466989; 14937-6_0105 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 105 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 104 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466988; 14937-6_0104 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 104 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466988?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 68 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466987; 14937-6_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 68 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 66 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466986; 14937-6_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 66 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 69 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466985; 14937-6_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 69 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 96 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466984; 14937-6_0096 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 96 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466984?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 65 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466983; 14937-6_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 65 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 94 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466982; 14937-6_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 94 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 70 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466980; 14937-6_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 70 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 63 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466977; 14937-6_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 63 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 60 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466976; 14937-6_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 59 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466975; 14937-6_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466975?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 90 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466974; 14937-6_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 90 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 14 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879466973; 14941-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466973?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 13 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879466971; 14941-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466971?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 12 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879466970; 14941-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466970?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 11 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879466969; 14941-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466969?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 10 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879466968; 14941-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 9 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879466967; 14941-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466967?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 8 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879466966; 14941-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466966?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). [Part 7 of 16] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 879466965; 14941-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466965?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 52 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466964; 14937-6_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466964?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 224 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466963; 14937-6_0224 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 224 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 57 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466962; 14937-6_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 51 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466960; 14937-6_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 49 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466958; 14937-6_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466958?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 41 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466957; 14937-6_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 38 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466956; 14937-6_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 30 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466955; 14937-6_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 23 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466954; 14937-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466954?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 22 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466953; 14937-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466953?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 19 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466952; 14937-6_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466952?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 33 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466951; 14937-6_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 28 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466949; 14937-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 42 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466948; 14937-6_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 158 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466947; 14937-6_0158 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 158 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 157 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466945; 14937-6_0157 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 157 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 37 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466944; 14937-6_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 26 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466943; 14937-6_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 36 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466941; 14937-6_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466941?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 24 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466940; 14937-6_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 213 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466939; 14937-6_0213 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 213 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 32 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466938; 14937-6_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 20 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466937; 14937-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 21 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466936; 14937-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466936?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 209 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466935; 14937-6_0209 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 209 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 25 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466933; 14937-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 167 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466932; 14937-6_0167 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 167 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 168 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466931; 14937-6_0168 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 168 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 202 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466930; 14937-6_0202 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 202 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466930?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 48 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466929; 14937-6_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 164 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466928; 14937-6_0164 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 164 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 160 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466927; 14937-6_0160 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 160 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466927?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 166 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466926; 14937-6_0166 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 166 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466926?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 193 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466924; 14937-6_0193 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 193 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 163 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466923; 14937-6_0163 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 163 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 214 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466922; 14937-6_0214 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 214 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 221 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466921; 14937-6_0221 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 221 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466921?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 165 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466920; 14937-6_0165 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 165 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 190 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466919; 14937-6_0190 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 190 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466919?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 212 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466917; 14937-6_0212 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 212 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 219 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466916; 14937-6_0219 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 219 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 162 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466915; 14937-6_0162 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 162 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 208 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466914; 14937-6_0208 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 208 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466914?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 195 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466913; 14937-6_0195 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 195 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 159 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466912; 14937-6_0159 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 159 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 47 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466911; 14937-6_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 43 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466910; 14937-6_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 199 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466909; 14937-6_0199 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 199 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466909?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 46 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466908; 14937-6_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466908?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 192 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466907; 14937-6_0192 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 192 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 31 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466906; 14937-6_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 205 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466905; 14937-6_0205 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 205 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 191 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466903; 14937-6_0191 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 191 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 204 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466902; 14937-6_0204 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 204 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 35 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466901; 14937-6_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 210 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466900; 14937-6_0210 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 210 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 218 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466899; 14937-6_0218 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 218 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 198 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466898; 14937-6_0198 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 198 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466898?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 45 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466897; 14937-6_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466897?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 217 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466896; 14937-6_0217 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 217 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 197 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466894; 14937-6_0197 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 197 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466894?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 44 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466893; 14937-6_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466893?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 207 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466892; 14937-6_0207 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 207 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466892?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 194 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466891; 14937-6_0194 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 194 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466891?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 216 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466890; 14937-6_0216 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 216 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 34 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466889; 14937-6_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466889?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 29 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466888; 14937-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 170 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466887; 14937-6_0170 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 170 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 169 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466886; 14937-6_0169 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 169 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 40 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466885; 14937-6_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 39 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466884; 14937-6_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466884?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 206 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466883; 14937-6_0206 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 206 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466883?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 201 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466882; 14937-6_0201 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 201 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 200 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466880; 14937-6_0200 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 200 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 18 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466879; 14937-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466879?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 17 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466878; 14937-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466878?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 16 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466877; 14937-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 156 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466876; 14937-6_0156 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 156 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 15 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466875; 14937-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466875?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 155 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466874; 14937-6_0155 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 155 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466874?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466873; 14937-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466873?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466872; 14937-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 154 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466871; 14937-6_0154 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 154 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466871?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466854; 14937-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 153 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466853; 14937-6_0153 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 153 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 148 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466851; 14937-6_0148 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 148 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466851?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466850; 14937-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466850?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 138 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466849; 14937-6_0138 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 138 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466849?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Journal+of+Business+Research&rft.atitle=Wal-Mart%3A+Supplier+performance+and+market+power&rft.au=Mottner%2C+Sandra%3BSmith%2C+Steve&rft.aulast=Mottner&rft.aufirst=Sandra&rft.date=2009-05-01&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=535&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Business+Research&rft.issn=01482963&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 147 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466848; 14937-6_0147 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 147 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466843; 14937-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466843?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 141 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466833; 14937-6_0141 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 141 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466833?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 10 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466832; 14937-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466832?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 13 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466831; 14937-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 182 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466830; 14937-6_0182 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 182 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466830?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 140 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466828; 14937-6_0140 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 140 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466828?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 12 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466827; 14937-6_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 146 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466826; 14937-6_0146 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 146 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466826?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 187 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466825; 14937-6_0187 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 187 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466825?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 139 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466824; 14937-6_0139 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 139 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 181 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466822; 14937-6_0181 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 181 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466822?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 136 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466821; 14937-6_0136 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 136 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 151 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466820; 14937-6_0151 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 151 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466820?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 174 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466819; 14937-6_0174 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 174 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466818; 14937-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466818?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 150 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466817; 14937-6_0150 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 150 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466816; 14937-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466816?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466815; 14937-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466815?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 14 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466814; 14937-6_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 145 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466812; 14937-6_0145 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 145 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466811; 14937-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 149 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466810; 14937-6_0149 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 149 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 172 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466809; 14937-6_0172 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 172 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466809?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 144 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466808; 14937-6_0144 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 144 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 152 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466807; 14937-6_0152 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 152 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 143 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466806; 14937-6_0143 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 143 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466806?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 185 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466805; 14937-6_0185 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 185 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466805?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 137 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466804; 14937-6_0137 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 137 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466804?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 186 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466803; 14937-6_0186 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 186 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 171 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466802; 14937-6_0171 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 171 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466802?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 142 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466801; 14937-6_0142 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 142 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466801?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 184 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466800; 14937-6_0184 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 184 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466800?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 178 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466798; 14937-6_0178 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 178 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 183 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466797; 14937-6_0183 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 183 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 179 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466796; 14937-6_0179 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 179 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 177 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466794; 14937-6_0177 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 177 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 176 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466793; 14937-6_0176 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 176 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 173 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466792; 14937-6_0173 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 173 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2010). AN - 16387114; 14941 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of July, 2010. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. This supplemental draft EIS evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed project in comparison to new nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and discloses data from monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 which revealed concentrations at levels above the NAAQS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in additional air quality impacts from ozone. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110180, 186 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-23 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 16372922; 14937 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RICE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16369577; 14943 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of transmission interconnection services and the designation of a new corridor for a 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line which would facilitate the development of the Rice Solar Energy Project (RSEP) in eastern Riverside County, California are proposed. On December 15, 2010, the California Energy Commission issued a conditional license to Rice Solar Energy, LLC (RSE) for the construction and operation of the 150-megawatt (MW) solar electric power plant on previously disturbed private land. The proposed projects new 10-mile long 230-kV generator tie-line, electric substation, and access road would be located on public lands and thus require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. RSE has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed plant which would be located in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert near State Route 62 (SR 62), 40 miles northwest of Blythe, California, and 15 miles west of Vidal Junction, California. The facility would utilize SolarReserve's concentrating solar power technology, and be equipped with an integral storage system. The technology generates power from sunlight by focusing energy from a field of sun-tracking mirrors called heliostats onto a central receiver. Liquid salt is circulated through the receiver collecting the energy gathered from the sun and is then routed to an insulated storage tank where it is stored with minimal energy losses. When electricity is to be generated, the hot salt is routed to heat exchangers to produce steam used to generate electricity in a conventional steam turbine cycle. The salt is then sent to the cold salt storage tank, ready to be reheated by the sun and reused the following day. The draft EIS of October, 2010 evaluated the proposed project, a No Action Alternative, a reduced acreage alternative, and two alternative sites. The North of Desert Center Alternative would reduce impacts to cultural resources associated with Rice Army Airfield; and the SR 62/Rice Valley Road Alternative would reduce wildlife habitat impacts and access road construction requirements. This abbreviated final EIS identifies Western Area Power Administration's preferred alternative, which is to provide the transmission interconnection to the plant facilities as proposed, and includes public and agency comments with responses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plant would provide 450,000 MW-hours of cost-competitive renewable energy power and help to meet the policy goals of California to produce 33 percent of the states electricity by renewable sources by 2020, and the federal goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025. Hundreds of construction jobs would be available over a 30-month construction period and 50 jobs during operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate or degrade native vegetation and cause temporary or long-term effects to contiguous habitat north of the solar generator site and along the transmission line alignments. The proposed project would likely have adverse effects on the threatened desert tortoise through direct loss of habitat, increased habitat fragmentation, and take of individuals. Construction and operation have potential to eliminate foraging habitat within range of known nesting territories of golden eagles and other raptors and would create flight collision, electrocution, and/or incineration hazards. The heliostat field and 653-foot-high central tower would cause visual impacts, particularly to motorists on SR 62, and to visitors to wilderness areas and Joshua Tree National Park. Night light pollution could also become cumulatively considerable. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0301D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110182, 114 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0439 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Sources KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16369577?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RICE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RICE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 26 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876254846; 14930-9_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 25 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876254841; 14930-9_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 23 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876254416; 14930-9_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254416?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 22 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876254413; 14930-9_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254413?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 21 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876253999; 14930-9_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 20 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876253998; 14930-9_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 14 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876253997; 14930-9_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 13 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876253996; 14930-9_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253996?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 12 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876253995; 14930-9_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 30 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876252239; 14930-9_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252239?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 29 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876252238; 14930-9_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252238?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 28 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876252237; 14930-9_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252237?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 27 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876252236; 14930-9_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 35 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876251774; 14930-9_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 34 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876251773; 14930-9_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 11 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876251772; 14930-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251772?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 10 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876251771; 14930-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 9 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876251769; 14930-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876251767; 14930-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251767?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876251764; 14930-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251764?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876251763; 14930-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251763?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 24 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249031; 14930-9_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 19 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249025; 14930-9_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 18 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249021; 14930-9_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249021?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 17 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249015; 14930-9_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 16 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249012; 14930-9_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 15 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249008; 14930-9_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 5 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249004; 14930-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 4 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876248999; 14930-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 33 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876248841; 14930-9_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 32 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876248837; 14930-9_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 31 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876248831; 14930-9_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 6 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876246543; 14930-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246543?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 8 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876244418; 14930-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876244418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 7 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876244402; 14930-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876244402?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease sale; 2012; Central Planning Area lease sale 216/222; draft supplemental environmental impact statement AN - 916840856; 2012-013821 JF - OCS Study BOEMRE Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - June 2011 EP - variously paginated PB - U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), [location varies] KW - United States KW - North America KW - technology KW - regulations KW - impact statements KW - pollution KW - petroleum KW - Gulf Coastal Plain KW - production KW - oil and gas fields KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - environmental effects KW - mitigation KW - natural resources KW - oil spills KW - risk assessment KW - ecology KW - North Atlantic KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916840856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Gulf+of+Mexico+OCS+oil+and+gas+lease+sale%3B+2012%3B+Central+Planning+Area+lease+sale+216%2F222%3B+draft+supplemental+environmental+impact+statement&rft.title=Gulf+of+Mexico+OCS+oil+and+gas+lease+sale%3B+2012%3B+Central+Planning+Area+lease+sale+216%2F222%3B+draft+supplemental+environmental+impact+statement&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 1800 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 64 tables, sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Includes appendices N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #07445 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Atlantic Ocean; ecology; environmental effects; Gulf Coastal Plain; Gulf of Mexico; impact statements; mitigation; natural resources; North America; North Atlantic; oil and gas fields; oil spills; petroleum; pollution; production; regulations; risk assessment; technology; United States ER - TY - GEN T1 - Analysis of Parent Survey Data Addressing Part B SPP/APR Indicator #8--2011 AN - 1697501095; ED554205 AB - In accordance with federal reporting requirements mandated by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) must report annually on 20 performance indicators related to the provision of special education services to children ages 3-21. This 2011 report presents findings of a survey conducted by the BIE to address Indicator #8, the "percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who reported that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities." The report includes the following appendices: (1) Response Frequencies By Item; (2) WINSTEPS Control File; and (3) Selected WINSTEPS Output. AU - Penfield, Randall D. Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - June 2011 SP - 59 PB - Bureau of Indian Education. 1849 C Street NW Mail Stop 3609MIB, Washington, DC 20240. KW - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act KW - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) KW - Preschool Education KW - Early Childhood Education KW - Elementary Secondary Education KW - Item Response Theory KW - Special Education KW - Educational Legislation KW - Parent Surveys KW - Race KW - Psychometrics KW - Federal Legislation KW - Rating Scales KW - Disabilities KW - Parent Participation KW - American Indian Education UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1697501095?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254677; 14921-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254669; 14921-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254669?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254666; 14921-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254666?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254660; 14921-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254660?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254658; 14921-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254658?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254406; 14921-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254406?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254404; 14921-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254404?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254402; 14921-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254402?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254399; 14921-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). [Part 5 of 5] T2 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). AN - 876254311; 14925-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The sale of oil and gas lease blocks in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area of the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is reconsidered. The affected area includes the Chukchi Sea marine environment, the associated coastal plain, and the North Slope Borough of Alaska. The Chukchi OCS is viewed as one of the most petroleum-rich offshore provinces in the U.S. and the current assessment by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) indicates that the mean recoverable oil resource amounts to 12 billion barrels, with a five percent chance of 29 billion barrels. The mean undiscovered gas resources total 76.77 trillion cubic feet with a five percent chance of 209.53 trillion cubic feet. After the release of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area final EIS in June 2007, the lease sale, designated Sale 193, was held in February 2008. BOEMRE accepted high bids of $2.7 billion and issued 487 leases for 2.8 million acres. The sale area excluded a 15- to 50-mile-wide corridor along the coast, known as the polynya or spring lead system. Water depths in the sale area vary from 95 feet to 262 feet, with a small portion of the northeast corner deep-ending to 9,800 feet in the Barrow Canyon. After a lawsuit challenge and a court remand of Sale 193, a September 2010 draft supplemental EIS provided further analysis of natural gas development in the Chukchi Sea. In view of the Deepwater Horizon event in the Gulf of Mexico, many commenters requested an analysis that takes into account the possibility of a blowout during exploration activities. This revised draft supplemental EIS relies on the existing analysis provided by the Sale 193 final EIS, analyzes additional information which has become available since the publication of the final EIS, adds new analysis on the impact of natural gas development, and analyzes a hypothetical very large oil spill (VLOS) scenario, defined as a spill more than or equal to 150,000 barrels of oil. Four alternatives are considered. Alternative I is the original proposed action to offer for lease 6,156 whole or partial blocks covering 34 million acres. Alternative II is the No Action Alternative and would require cancellation of all leases awarded following the February 2008 sale. Under Alternative III, a corridor extending 60 miles offshore along the coastward edge of the proposed sale area would be excluded to protect important bowhead whale habitat. Alternative III would offer 1,765 whole or partial blocks comprising 9.1 million acres and the deferral of Corridor I would result in a reduction of 36 percent of the commercial resources opportunity index from the proposed action. Portions of Chukchi Sale 193 could be affirmed, but leases issued on tracts within Corridor I would be cancelled. Alternative IV, which is the preferred alternative, is the original proposed action minus 795 whole or partial blocks along the coastward edge of the sale area designated as Corridor II. The Corridor II deferral area is a subset of the Corridor I deferral area analyzed under Alternative III. Alternative IV would affirm the issuance of the leases pursuant to Sale 193 as held and would be implemented by removing the suspension of operations imposed on the leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the Chuckchi leases would provide enormous supplies of oil for energy production, thus increasing the nation's energy independence. Development of the Chuckchi energy resource would employ thousands of workers and otherwise boost the regional and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharges of muds, cuttings, and produced waters would impact water quality near platforms and wells. Construction would destroy benthos temporarily and disturb benthic habitat through the life of the project. Noise-related disturbance of fish and direct loss or degradation of fish habitat would occur. Seismic surveys, ship movements, drilling, platform and pipeline construction, and other activities would affect marine mammals and could impact federally protected bird species. A VLOS, although unlikely, would present sustained and significant degradation of water quality from hydrocarbon contamination, response and cleanup vessels, in-situ burning of oil, dispersant use, discharges and seafloor disturbance from relief well drilling, and activities on shorelines associated with clean-up, booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring. A VLOS could emit large amounts of regulated potentially harmful pollutants causing major air quality impacts. Phytoplankton, fish species, essential fish habitat, marine mammals, polar bear, marine and coastal birds, and coastal vegetation and wetlands could be significantly impacted. Environmental justice impacts on Inupiat Natives could occur because of their reliance on subsistence foods, and oil-spill impacts would affect subsistence resources and harvest practices, sociocultural systems, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0625D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0199F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively. For the abstract of the original draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0586D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110164, Revised Supplemental Draft EIS--376 pages, Appendices--264 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2010-034 KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254311?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHUKCHI+SEA+PLANNING+AREA+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE+193+IN+THE+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+ALASKA+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2007%29.&rft.title=CHUKCHI+SEA+PLANNING+AREA+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE+193+IN+THE+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+ALASKA+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). [Part 4 of 5] T2 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). AN - 876254310; 14925-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The sale of oil and gas lease blocks in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area of the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is reconsidered. The affected area includes the Chukchi Sea marine environment, the associated coastal plain, and the North Slope Borough of Alaska. The Chukchi OCS is viewed as one of the most petroleum-rich offshore provinces in the U.S. and the current assessment by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) indicates that the mean recoverable oil resource amounts to 12 billion barrels, with a five percent chance of 29 billion barrels. The mean undiscovered gas resources total 76.77 trillion cubic feet with a five percent chance of 209.53 trillion cubic feet. After the release of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area final EIS in June 2007, the lease sale, designated Sale 193, was held in February 2008. BOEMRE accepted high bids of $2.7 billion and issued 487 leases for 2.8 million acres. The sale area excluded a 15- to 50-mile-wide corridor along the coast, known as the polynya or spring lead system. Water depths in the sale area vary from 95 feet to 262 feet, with a small portion of the northeast corner deep-ending to 9,800 feet in the Barrow Canyon. After a lawsuit challenge and a court remand of Sale 193, a September 2010 draft supplemental EIS provided further analysis of natural gas development in the Chukchi Sea. In view of the Deepwater Horizon event in the Gulf of Mexico, many commenters requested an analysis that takes into account the possibility of a blowout during exploration activities. This revised draft supplemental EIS relies on the existing analysis provided by the Sale 193 final EIS, analyzes additional information which has become available since the publication of the final EIS, adds new analysis on the impact of natural gas development, and analyzes a hypothetical very large oil spill (VLOS) scenario, defined as a spill more than or equal to 150,000 barrels of oil. Four alternatives are considered. Alternative I is the original proposed action to offer for lease 6,156 whole or partial blocks covering 34 million acres. Alternative II is the No Action Alternative and would require cancellation of all leases awarded following the February 2008 sale. Under Alternative III, a corridor extending 60 miles offshore along the coastward edge of the proposed sale area would be excluded to protect important bowhead whale habitat. Alternative III would offer 1,765 whole or partial blocks comprising 9.1 million acres and the deferral of Corridor I would result in a reduction of 36 percent of the commercial resources opportunity index from the proposed action. Portions of Chukchi Sale 193 could be affirmed, but leases issued on tracts within Corridor I would be cancelled. Alternative IV, which is the preferred alternative, is the original proposed action minus 795 whole or partial blocks along the coastward edge of the sale area designated as Corridor II. The Corridor II deferral area is a subset of the Corridor I deferral area analyzed under Alternative III. Alternative IV would affirm the issuance of the leases pursuant to Sale 193 as held and would be implemented by removing the suspension of operations imposed on the leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the Chuckchi leases would provide enormous supplies of oil for energy production, thus increasing the nation's energy independence. Development of the Chuckchi energy resource would employ thousands of workers and otherwise boost the regional and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharges of muds, cuttings, and produced waters would impact water quality near platforms and wells. Construction would destroy benthos temporarily and disturb benthic habitat through the life of the project. Noise-related disturbance of fish and direct loss or degradation of fish habitat would occur. Seismic surveys, ship movements, drilling, platform and pipeline construction, and other activities would affect marine mammals and could impact federally protected bird species. A VLOS, although unlikely, would present sustained and significant degradation of water quality from hydrocarbon contamination, response and cleanup vessels, in-situ burning of oil, dispersant use, discharges and seafloor disturbance from relief well drilling, and activities on shorelines associated with clean-up, booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring. A VLOS could emit large amounts of regulated potentially harmful pollutants causing major air quality impacts. Phytoplankton, fish species, essential fish habitat, marine mammals, polar bear, marine and coastal birds, and coastal vegetation and wetlands could be significantly impacted. Environmental justice impacts on Inupiat Natives could occur because of their reliance on subsistence foods, and oil-spill impacts would affect subsistence resources and harvest practices, sociocultural systems, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0625D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0199F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively. For the abstract of the original draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0586D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110164, Revised Supplemental Draft EIS--376 pages, Appendices--264 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2010-034 KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254310?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHUKCHI+SEA+PLANNING+AREA+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE+193+IN+THE+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+ALASKA+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2007%29.&rft.title=CHUKCHI+SEA+PLANNING+AREA+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE+193+IN+THE+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+ALASKA+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). [Part 3 of 5] T2 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). AN - 876254308; 14925-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The sale of oil and gas lease blocks in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area of the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is reconsidered. The affected area includes the Chukchi Sea marine environment, the associated coastal plain, and the North Slope Borough of Alaska. The Chukchi OCS is viewed as one of the most petroleum-rich offshore provinces in the U.S. and the current assessment by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) indicates that the mean recoverable oil resource amounts to 12 billion barrels, with a five percent chance of 29 billion barrels. The mean undiscovered gas resources total 76.77 trillion cubic feet with a five percent chance of 209.53 trillion cubic feet. After the release of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area final EIS in June 2007, the lease sale, designated Sale 193, was held in February 2008. BOEMRE accepted high bids of $2.7 billion and issued 487 leases for 2.8 million acres. The sale area excluded a 15- to 50-mile-wide corridor along the coast, known as the polynya or spring lead system. Water depths in the sale area vary from 95 feet to 262 feet, with a small portion of the northeast corner deep-ending to 9,800 feet in the Barrow Canyon. After a lawsuit challenge and a court remand of Sale 193, a September 2010 draft supplemental EIS provided further analysis of natural gas development in the Chukchi Sea. In view of the Deepwater Horizon event in the Gulf of Mexico, many commenters requested an analysis that takes into account the possibility of a blowout during exploration activities. This revised draft supplemental EIS relies on the existing analysis provided by the Sale 193 final EIS, analyzes additional information which has become available since the publication of the final EIS, adds new analysis on the impact of natural gas development, and analyzes a hypothetical very large oil spill (VLOS) scenario, defined as a spill more than or equal to 150,000 barrels of oil. Four alternatives are considered. Alternative I is the original proposed action to offer for lease 6,156 whole or partial blocks covering 34 million acres. Alternative II is the No Action Alternative and would require cancellation of all leases awarded following the February 2008 sale. Under Alternative III, a corridor extending 60 miles offshore along the coastward edge of the proposed sale area would be excluded to protect important bowhead whale habitat. Alternative III would offer 1,765 whole or partial blocks comprising 9.1 million acres and the deferral of Corridor I would result in a reduction of 36 percent of the commercial resources opportunity index from the proposed action. Portions of Chukchi Sale 193 could be affirmed, but leases issued on tracts within Corridor I would be cancelled. Alternative IV, which is the preferred alternative, is the original proposed action minus 795 whole or partial blocks along the coastward edge of the sale area designated as Corridor II. The Corridor II deferral area is a subset of the Corridor I deferral area analyzed under Alternative III. Alternative IV would affirm the issuance of the leases pursuant to Sale 193 as held and would be implemented by removing the suspension of operations imposed on the leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the Chuckchi leases would provide enormous supplies of oil for energy production, thus increasing the nation's energy independence. Development of the Chuckchi energy resource would employ thousands of workers and otherwise boost the regional and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharges of muds, cuttings, and produced waters would impact water quality near platforms and wells. Construction would destroy benthos temporarily and disturb benthic habitat through the life of the project. Noise-related disturbance of fish and direct loss or degradation of fish habitat would occur. Seismic surveys, ship movements, drilling, platform and pipeline construction, and other activities would affect marine mammals and could impact federally protected bird species. A VLOS, although unlikely, would present sustained and significant degradation of water quality from hydrocarbon contamination, response and cleanup vessels, in-situ burning of oil, dispersant use, discharges and seafloor disturbance from relief well drilling, and activities on shorelines associated with clean-up, booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring. A VLOS could emit large amounts of regulated potentially harmful pollutants causing major air quality impacts. Phytoplankton, fish species, essential fish habitat, marine mammals, polar bear, marine and coastal birds, and coastal vegetation and wetlands could be significantly impacted. Environmental justice impacts on Inupiat Natives could occur because of their reliance on subsistence foods, and oil-spill impacts would affect subsistence resources and harvest practices, sociocultural systems, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0625D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0199F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively. For the abstract of the original draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0586D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110164, Revised Supplemental Draft EIS--376 pages, Appendices--264 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2010-034 KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254308?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). [Part 2 of 5] T2 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). AN - 876254306; 14925-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The sale of oil and gas lease blocks in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area of the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is reconsidered. The affected area includes the Chukchi Sea marine environment, the associated coastal plain, and the North Slope Borough of Alaska. The Chukchi OCS is viewed as one of the most petroleum-rich offshore provinces in the U.S. and the current assessment by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) indicates that the mean recoverable oil resource amounts to 12 billion barrels, with a five percent chance of 29 billion barrels. The mean undiscovered gas resources total 76.77 trillion cubic feet with a five percent chance of 209.53 trillion cubic feet. After the release of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area final EIS in June 2007, the lease sale, designated Sale 193, was held in February 2008. BOEMRE accepted high bids of $2.7 billion and issued 487 leases for 2.8 million acres. The sale area excluded a 15- to 50-mile-wide corridor along the coast, known as the polynya or spring lead system. Water depths in the sale area vary from 95 feet to 262 feet, with a small portion of the northeast corner deep-ending to 9,800 feet in the Barrow Canyon. After a lawsuit challenge and a court remand of Sale 193, a September 2010 draft supplemental EIS provided further analysis of natural gas development in the Chukchi Sea. In view of the Deepwater Horizon event in the Gulf of Mexico, many commenters requested an analysis that takes into account the possibility of a blowout during exploration activities. This revised draft supplemental EIS relies on the existing analysis provided by the Sale 193 final EIS, analyzes additional information which has become available since the publication of the final EIS, adds new analysis on the impact of natural gas development, and analyzes a hypothetical very large oil spill (VLOS) scenario, defined as a spill more than or equal to 150,000 barrels of oil. Four alternatives are considered. Alternative I is the original proposed action to offer for lease 6,156 whole or partial blocks covering 34 million acres. Alternative II is the No Action Alternative and would require cancellation of all leases awarded following the February 2008 sale. Under Alternative III, a corridor extending 60 miles offshore along the coastward edge of the proposed sale area would be excluded to protect important bowhead whale habitat. Alternative III would offer 1,765 whole or partial blocks comprising 9.1 million acres and the deferral of Corridor I would result in a reduction of 36 percent of the commercial resources opportunity index from the proposed action. Portions of Chukchi Sale 193 could be affirmed, but leases issued on tracts within Corridor I would be cancelled. Alternative IV, which is the preferred alternative, is the original proposed action minus 795 whole or partial blocks along the coastward edge of the sale area designated as Corridor II. The Corridor II deferral area is a subset of the Corridor I deferral area analyzed under Alternative III. Alternative IV would affirm the issuance of the leases pursuant to Sale 193 as held and would be implemented by removing the suspension of operations imposed on the leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the Chuckchi leases would provide enormous supplies of oil for energy production, thus increasing the nation's energy independence. Development of the Chuckchi energy resource would employ thousands of workers and otherwise boost the regional and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharges of muds, cuttings, and produced waters would impact water quality near platforms and wells. Construction would destroy benthos temporarily and disturb benthic habitat through the life of the project. Noise-related disturbance of fish and direct loss or degradation of fish habitat would occur. Seismic surveys, ship movements, drilling, platform and pipeline construction, and other activities would affect marine mammals and could impact federally protected bird species. A VLOS, although unlikely, would present sustained and significant degradation of water quality from hydrocarbon contamination, response and cleanup vessels, in-situ burning of oil, dispersant use, discharges and seafloor disturbance from relief well drilling, and activities on shorelines associated with clean-up, booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring. A VLOS could emit large amounts of regulated potentially harmful pollutants causing major air quality impacts. Phytoplankton, fish species, essential fish habitat, marine mammals, polar bear, marine and coastal birds, and coastal vegetation and wetlands could be significantly impacted. Environmental justice impacts on Inupiat Natives could occur because of their reliance on subsistence foods, and oil-spill impacts would affect subsistence resources and harvest practices, sociocultural systems, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0625D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0199F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively. For the abstract of the original draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0586D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110164, Revised Supplemental Draft EIS--376 pages, Appendices--264 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2010-034 KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254306?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHUKCHI+SEA+PLANNING+AREA+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE+193+IN+THE+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+ALASKA+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2007%29.&rft.title=CHUKCHI+SEA+PLANNING+AREA+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE+193+IN+THE+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+ALASKA+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). [Part 1 of 5] T2 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). AN - 876254302; 14925-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The sale of oil and gas lease blocks in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area of the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is reconsidered. The affected area includes the Chukchi Sea marine environment, the associated coastal plain, and the North Slope Borough of Alaska. The Chukchi OCS is viewed as one of the most petroleum-rich offshore provinces in the U.S. and the current assessment by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) indicates that the mean recoverable oil resource amounts to 12 billion barrels, with a five percent chance of 29 billion barrels. The mean undiscovered gas resources total 76.77 trillion cubic feet with a five percent chance of 209.53 trillion cubic feet. After the release of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area final EIS in June 2007, the lease sale, designated Sale 193, was held in February 2008. BOEMRE accepted high bids of $2.7 billion and issued 487 leases for 2.8 million acres. The sale area excluded a 15- to 50-mile-wide corridor along the coast, known as the polynya or spring lead system. Water depths in the sale area vary from 95 feet to 262 feet, with a small portion of the northeast corner deep-ending to 9,800 feet in the Barrow Canyon. After a lawsuit challenge and a court remand of Sale 193, a September 2010 draft supplemental EIS provided further analysis of natural gas development in the Chukchi Sea. In view of the Deepwater Horizon event in the Gulf of Mexico, many commenters requested an analysis that takes into account the possibility of a blowout during exploration activities. This revised draft supplemental EIS relies on the existing analysis provided by the Sale 193 final EIS, analyzes additional information which has become available since the publication of the final EIS, adds new analysis on the impact of natural gas development, and analyzes a hypothetical very large oil spill (VLOS) scenario, defined as a spill more than or equal to 150,000 barrels of oil. Four alternatives are considered. Alternative I is the original proposed action to offer for lease 6,156 whole or partial blocks covering 34 million acres. Alternative II is the No Action Alternative and would require cancellation of all leases awarded following the February 2008 sale. Under Alternative III, a corridor extending 60 miles offshore along the coastward edge of the proposed sale area would be excluded to protect important bowhead whale habitat. Alternative III would offer 1,765 whole or partial blocks comprising 9.1 million acres and the deferral of Corridor I would result in a reduction of 36 percent of the commercial resources opportunity index from the proposed action. Portions of Chukchi Sale 193 could be affirmed, but leases issued on tracts within Corridor I would be cancelled. Alternative IV, which is the preferred alternative, is the original proposed action minus 795 whole or partial blocks along the coastward edge of the sale area designated as Corridor II. The Corridor II deferral area is a subset of the Corridor I deferral area analyzed under Alternative III. Alternative IV would affirm the issuance of the leases pursuant to Sale 193 as held and would be implemented by removing the suspension of operations imposed on the leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the Chuckchi leases would provide enormous supplies of oil for energy production, thus increasing the nation's energy independence. Development of the Chuckchi energy resource would employ thousands of workers and otherwise boost the regional and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharges of muds, cuttings, and produced waters would impact water quality near platforms and wells. Construction would destroy benthos temporarily and disturb benthic habitat through the life of the project. Noise-related disturbance of fish and direct loss or degradation of fish habitat would occur. Seismic surveys, ship movements, drilling, platform and pipeline construction, and other activities would affect marine mammals and could impact federally protected bird species. A VLOS, although unlikely, would present sustained and significant degradation of water quality from hydrocarbon contamination, response and cleanup vessels, in-situ burning of oil, dispersant use, discharges and seafloor disturbance from relief well drilling, and activities on shorelines associated with clean-up, booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring. A VLOS could emit large amounts of regulated potentially harmful pollutants causing major air quality impacts. Phytoplankton, fish species, essential fish habitat, marine mammals, polar bear, marine and coastal birds, and coastal vegetation and wetlands could be significantly impacted. Environmental justice impacts on Inupiat Natives could occur because of their reliance on subsistence foods, and oil-spill impacts would affect subsistence resources and harvest practices, sociocultural systems, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0625D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0199F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively. For the abstract of the original draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0586D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110164, Revised Supplemental Draft EIS--376 pages, Appendices--264 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2010-034 KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254299; 14921-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254299?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254297; 14921-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254297?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876252196; 14921-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876252191; 14921-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876252189; 14921-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876252187; 14921-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876249149; 14921-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876246538; 14921-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876246535; 14921-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876246531; 14921-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246531?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873116507; 14921 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873116507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). AN - 873116504; 14925 AB - PURPOSE: The sale of oil and gas lease blocks in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area of the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is reconsidered. The affected area includes the Chukchi Sea marine environment, the associated coastal plain, and the North Slope Borough of Alaska. The Chukchi OCS is viewed as one of the most petroleum-rich offshore provinces in the U.S. and the current assessment by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) indicates that the mean recoverable oil resource amounts to 12 billion barrels, with a five percent chance of 29 billion barrels. The mean undiscovered gas resources total 76.77 trillion cubic feet with a five percent chance of 209.53 trillion cubic feet. After the release of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area final EIS in June 2007, the lease sale, designated Sale 193, was held in February 2008. BOEMRE accepted high bids of $2.7 billion and issued 487 leases for 2.8 million acres. The sale area excluded a 15- to 50-mile-wide corridor along the coast, known as the polynya or spring lead system. Water depths in the sale area vary from 95 feet to 262 feet, with a small portion of the northeast corner deep-ending to 9,800 feet in the Barrow Canyon. After a lawsuit challenge and a court remand of Sale 193, a September 2010 draft supplemental EIS provided further analysis of natural gas development in the Chukchi Sea. In view of the Deepwater Horizon event in the Gulf of Mexico, many commenters requested an analysis that takes into account the possibility of a blowout during exploration activities. This revised draft supplemental EIS relies on the existing analysis provided by the Sale 193 final EIS, analyzes additional information which has become available since the publication of the final EIS, adds new analysis on the impact of natural gas development, and analyzes a hypothetical very large oil spill (VLOS) scenario, defined as a spill more than or equal to 150,000 barrels of oil. Four alternatives are considered. Alternative I is the original proposed action to offer for lease 6,156 whole or partial blocks covering 34 million acres. Alternative II is the No Action Alternative and would require cancellation of all leases awarded following the February 2008 sale. Under Alternative III, a corridor extending 60 miles offshore along the coastward edge of the proposed sale area would be excluded to protect important bowhead whale habitat. Alternative III would offer 1,765 whole or partial blocks comprising 9.1 million acres and the deferral of Corridor I would result in a reduction of 36 percent of the commercial resources opportunity index from the proposed action. Portions of Chukchi Sale 193 could be affirmed, but leases issued on tracts within Corridor I would be cancelled. Alternative IV, which is the preferred alternative, is the original proposed action minus 795 whole or partial blocks along the coastward edge of the sale area designated as Corridor II. The Corridor II deferral area is a subset of the Corridor I deferral area analyzed under Alternative III. Alternative IV would affirm the issuance of the leases pursuant to Sale 193 as held and would be implemented by removing the suspension of operations imposed on the leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the Chuckchi leases would provide enormous supplies of oil for energy production, thus increasing the nation's energy independence. Development of the Chuckchi energy resource would employ thousands of workers and otherwise boost the regional and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharges of muds, cuttings, and produced waters would impact water quality near platforms and wells. Construction would destroy benthos temporarily and disturb benthic habitat through the life of the project. Noise-related disturbance of fish and direct loss or degradation of fish habitat would occur. Seismic surveys, ship movements, drilling, platform and pipeline construction, and other activities would affect marine mammals and could impact federally protected bird species. A VLOS, although unlikely, would present sustained and significant degradation of water quality from hydrocarbon contamination, response and cleanup vessels, in-situ burning of oil, dispersant use, discharges and seafloor disturbance from relief well drilling, and activities on shorelines associated with clean-up, booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring. A VLOS could emit large amounts of regulated potentially harmful pollutants causing major air quality impacts. Phytoplankton, fish species, essential fish habitat, marine mammals, polar bear, marine and coastal birds, and coastal vegetation and wetlands could be significantly impacted. Environmental justice impacts on Inupiat Natives could occur because of their reliance on subsistence foods, and oil-spill impacts would affect subsistence resources and harvest practices, sociocultural systems, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0625D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0199F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively. For the abstract of the original draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0586D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110164, Revised Supplemental Draft EIS--376 pages, Appendices--264 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2010-034 KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873116504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAYFIELD AND ASHLAND COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAYFIELD AND ASHLAND COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 873130077; 14916-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan/wilderness management plan for the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Bayfield and Ashland counties, Wisconsin is proposed. Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is located near the tip of the Bayfield Peninsula and includes 21 islands in Lake Superior and a 12-mile-long narrow strip of mainland shoreline. Eighty percent of the land area of the 69,372-acre park was designated as the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness in December 2004. The islands range in size from 3-acre Gull Island to 10,054-acre Stockton Island. The park features pristine stretches of sand beaches and coves; spectacular sea caves; some of the largest stands of remnant old-growth forests in the upper Midwest; a diverse population of birds, mammals, amphibians, and fish; and the largest collection of national register lighthouses and lighthouse complexes in the national park system. The Apostle islands region is in the heart of the ancestral homeland of the Chippewa Ojibwe people. The last comprehensive management plan for the park was completed in 1989. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would restore or rehabilitate two light stations and part of the Long Island light station would be rehabilitated for park staff housing. Additional transportation options would be sought to encourage visitors at Sand, Basswood, and Oak islands and some additional facilities would be developed on these islands. Manitou fish camp would be preserved and stabilized, the cultural landscape would be rehabilitated, and the area would be interpreted. There would be no change in the number of public docks, but some docks would be relocated, improved, or expanded. The Bayfield visitor center would be relocated closer to the water and the Little Sand Bay visitor center would be replaced with a visitor contact station. A new ranger station and accessible beach ramp would be developed at Meyers Beach. Alternative 3 would focus on providing primitive, lake-oriented recreation and education opportunities and would implement slight improvements in access to islands. Under Alternative 4, the emphasis would be on providing greater variety of structured recreation opportunities for visitors with no new transportation options developed. Implementation cost for the preferred alternative is estimated in 2008 dollars at $27.7 million and the net increase for the park's operating budget is estimated at $700,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would clearly define resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved. The plan would provide a framework for decision-making with regard to protecting resources, managing visitor use, and developing facilities in or near the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Sandscapes and shorelines would continue to be affected by visitors and by existing docks. New development under the preferred alternative would impact vegetation and the natural soundscapes in localized areas. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 91-424. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0267D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110155, Final EIS--361 pages, Appendices--228 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Islands KW - Lakes KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Wilderness Management KW - Apostle Islands National Lakeshore KW - Gaylord Nelson Wilderness KW - Lake Superior KW - Wisconsin KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 91-424, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130077?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APOSTLE+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+WILDERNESS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAYFIELD+AND+ASHLAND+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APOSTLE+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+WILDERNESS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAYFIELD+AND+ASHLAND+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bayfield, Wisconsin; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAYFIELD AND ASHLAND COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAYFIELD AND ASHLAND COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 873130047; 14916-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan/wilderness management plan for the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Bayfield and Ashland counties, Wisconsin is proposed. Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is located near the tip of the Bayfield Peninsula and includes 21 islands in Lake Superior and a 12-mile-long narrow strip of mainland shoreline. Eighty percent of the land area of the 69,372-acre park was designated as the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness in December 2004. The islands range in size from 3-acre Gull Island to 10,054-acre Stockton Island. The park features pristine stretches of sand beaches and coves; spectacular sea caves; some of the largest stands of remnant old-growth forests in the upper Midwest; a diverse population of birds, mammals, amphibians, and fish; and the largest collection of national register lighthouses and lighthouse complexes in the national park system. The Apostle islands region is in the heart of the ancestral homeland of the Chippewa Ojibwe people. The last comprehensive management plan for the park was completed in 1989. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would restore or rehabilitate two light stations and part of the Long Island light station would be rehabilitated for park staff housing. Additional transportation options would be sought to encourage visitors at Sand, Basswood, and Oak islands and some additional facilities would be developed on these islands. Manitou fish camp would be preserved and stabilized, the cultural landscape would be rehabilitated, and the area would be interpreted. There would be no change in the number of public docks, but some docks would be relocated, improved, or expanded. The Bayfield visitor center would be relocated closer to the water and the Little Sand Bay visitor center would be replaced with a visitor contact station. A new ranger station and accessible beach ramp would be developed at Meyers Beach. Alternative 3 would focus on providing primitive, lake-oriented recreation and education opportunities and would implement slight improvements in access to islands. Under Alternative 4, the emphasis would be on providing greater variety of structured recreation opportunities for visitors with no new transportation options developed. Implementation cost for the preferred alternative is estimated in 2008 dollars at $27.7 million and the net increase for the park's operating budget is estimated at $700,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would clearly define resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved. The plan would provide a framework for decision-making with regard to protecting resources, managing visitor use, and developing facilities in or near the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Sandscapes and shorelines would continue to be affected by visitors and by existing docks. New development under the preferred alternative would impact vegetation and the natural soundscapes in localized areas. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 91-424. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0267D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110155, Final EIS--361 pages, Appendices--228 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Islands KW - Lakes KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Wilderness Management KW - Apostle Islands National Lakeshore KW - Gaylord Nelson Wilderness KW - Lake Superior KW - Wisconsin KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 91-424, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bayfield, Wisconsin; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. AN - 873127746; 14907-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term plan to manage winter use and access and to address the issue of oversnow vehicle (OSV) use in the interior of Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming is proposed. Winter use in Yellowstone National Park, specifically issues related to OSVs, has been the subject of debate for more than 75 years. At least 12 times since 1930, the National Park Service and park stakeholders have formally debated what the park should look and be like in winter. Historically, the increase in the use of OSVs caused air and noise pollution, conflicts with other users, and harassment of wildlife. As a result of litigation and court order, the legal authority for OSV use (snowmobiles and snowcoaches) at Yellowstone expired March 15, 2011. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would not permit public OSV use in Yellowstone, but would allow for approved non-motorized use to continue. Alternative 2 would manage OSV use at the same levels as the 2009 interim rule (up to 318 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 3 would allow for snowmobile and snowcoach use levels to increase to the levels set forth in the 2004 plan (up to 720 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 4 would allow for commercially guided wheeled vehicles, in addition to OSVs (up to 100 commercially wheeled vehicles, 110 snowmobiles, and 30 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 5 would initially allow for the same level of use as Alternative 2, but would provide for a transition to snowcoaches only if user demand is present to support such a transition or at the discretion of the park superintendent. Upon complete transition, there would be zero snowmobiles and up to 120 snowcoaches per day. Alternative 6 would provide for use levels that vary each day, with a seasonal limit of up to 32,000 snowmobiles and 4,600 snowcoaches, and a daily limit of up to 540 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches. Up to 25 percent of snowmobile permits under Alternative 6 would be for unguided or non-commercially guided use. Alternative 7, which is the preferred alternative, would also allow for variable use levels throughout the season, with snowmobile use ranging from 110 to 330 snowmobiles per day and snowcoach use ranging from 30 to 80 vehicles per day. The varying use levels would provide for high and low OSV use days, allowing for a variety of motorized and non- motorized visitor experiences throughout the winter season. A standard based on best available technology for nitrogen oxides emissions and updated sound testing would be implemented by 2014/2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would meet the need for a decision regarding continued OSV use and establish a management framework that allows the public to experience the unique winter resources and values at Yellowstone National Park while protecting natural resources. Implementation of the preferred alternative would have beneficial, long-term economic impacts for the three-state area and the gateway communities of Cody and Jackson, Wyoming and West Yellowstone, Montana. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred plan, winter use levels would be similar to those currently occurring and OSV use would continue to generate emissions and noise in the interior of the park. Elk and bison would continue to be subject to encounters and conflicts with OSV users. Canada lynx, gray wolf, wolverine, bald eagle, and trumpeter swan could be impacted by OSV use including noise and human presence. Visitors could be exposed to emissions, noise, and known hazards. Sylvan Pass would continue to operate and workers would continue to be exposed to hazardous conditions in an avalanche prone area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110146, 542 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Wyoming KW - Yellowstone National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. AN - 873127734; 14907-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term plan to manage winter use and access and to address the issue of oversnow vehicle (OSV) use in the interior of Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming is proposed. Winter use in Yellowstone National Park, specifically issues related to OSVs, has been the subject of debate for more than 75 years. At least 12 times since 1930, the National Park Service and park stakeholders have formally debated what the park should look and be like in winter. Historically, the increase in the use of OSVs caused air and noise pollution, conflicts with other users, and harassment of wildlife. As a result of litigation and court order, the legal authority for OSV use (snowmobiles and snowcoaches) at Yellowstone expired March 15, 2011. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would not permit public OSV use in Yellowstone, but would allow for approved non-motorized use to continue. Alternative 2 would manage OSV use at the same levels as the 2009 interim rule (up to 318 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 3 would allow for snowmobile and snowcoach use levels to increase to the levels set forth in the 2004 plan (up to 720 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 4 would allow for commercially guided wheeled vehicles, in addition to OSVs (up to 100 commercially wheeled vehicles, 110 snowmobiles, and 30 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 5 would initially allow for the same level of use as Alternative 2, but would provide for a transition to snowcoaches only if user demand is present to support such a transition or at the discretion of the park superintendent. Upon complete transition, there would be zero snowmobiles and up to 120 snowcoaches per day. Alternative 6 would provide for use levels that vary each day, with a seasonal limit of up to 32,000 snowmobiles and 4,600 snowcoaches, and a daily limit of up to 540 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches. Up to 25 percent of snowmobile permits under Alternative 6 would be for unguided or non-commercially guided use. Alternative 7, which is the preferred alternative, would also allow for variable use levels throughout the season, with snowmobile use ranging from 110 to 330 snowmobiles per day and snowcoach use ranging from 30 to 80 vehicles per day. The varying use levels would provide for high and low OSV use days, allowing for a variety of motorized and non- motorized visitor experiences throughout the winter season. A standard based on best available technology for nitrogen oxides emissions and updated sound testing would be implemented by 2014/2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would meet the need for a decision regarding continued OSV use and establish a management framework that allows the public to experience the unique winter resources and values at Yellowstone National Park while protecting natural resources. Implementation of the preferred alternative would have beneficial, long-term economic impacts for the three-state area and the gateway communities of Cody and Jackson, Wyoming and West Yellowstone, Montana. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred plan, winter use levels would be similar to those currently occurring and OSV use would continue to generate emissions and noise in the interior of the park. Elk and bison would continue to be subject to encounters and conflicts with OSV users. Canada lynx, gray wolf, wolverine, bald eagle, and trumpeter swan could be impacted by OSV use including noise and human presence. Visitors could be exposed to emissions, noise, and known hazards. Sylvan Pass would continue to operate and workers would continue to be exposed to hazardous conditions in an avalanche prone area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110146, 542 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Wyoming KW - Yellowstone National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127734?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MECHANICAL CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EMERGENT SANDBAR HABITAT IN THE RIVERINE SEGMENTS OF THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - MECHANICAL CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EMERGENT SANDBAR HABITAT IN THE RIVERINE SEGMENTS OF THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 873127705; 14908-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A program to mechanically create and maintain emergent sandbar habitat (ESH) within 440 miles of the upper Missouri River to support least tern and northern Great Plains piping plover populations in Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota is proposed. The ESH program is part of the Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP) and this final programmatic EIS is tiered from the final EIS and Record of Decision for the Master Water Control Manual Review and Update issued in March 2004. Six dams and their associated lakes affect the geomorphologic, hydrologic, ecological, social, cultural, and economic conditions along the river and the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that would have created habitat for least terns and piping plovers are greatly reduced. The least tern was federally listed as endangered in 1985 and the piping plover as threatened in 1986. Construction of ESH is proposed for five riverine segments downstream from four of these dams: 1) the 203.5-mile Fort Peck segment from Fort Peck Dam to the headwaters of Lake Sakakawea near Williston, North Dakota; 2) the 85.9-mile Garrison segment form Garrison Dam to the Lake Oahe headwaters south of Bismarck, North Dakota; 3) the 35-mile Fort Randall segment from Fort Randall Dam to upstream of the Niobrara River confluence; 4) the 17-mile Lewis & Clark segment from upstream of the Niobrara River confluence to the Lewis and Clark Lake headwaters; and 5) the 58.1-mile Gavins Point segment from Gavins Point Dam to Ponca, Nebraska. The alternatives considered represent a range of ESH acreage goals from Alternative 1 (11,886 acres) through Alternative 5 (1,315 acres). Two no action alternatives are considered: the existing ESH program with levels of construction of approximately 150 acres per year, and the No Program Alternative. The preferred alternative would employ an adaptive management implementation process (AMIP) whereby actions would be progressively implemented until the desired biological response is attained and sustained. While the exact number of acres needed to be constructed and replaced is uncertain at this time, the impacts associated with constructing and replacing up to the acreage of Alternative 3.5 (4,370 acres) are assessed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would benefit least tern and piping plover populations by supplementing natural habitat. Adult bird numbers are projected to increase over the life of the program under all action alternatives. New ESH would benefit other shore birds and many native fish species, as well as amphibians and reptiles. The preferred AMIP alternative would provide a flexible approach to meeting identified biological metrics for the least tern and piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Including borrow areas, an estimated 2.75 acres would be impacted for each acre of ESH constructed. Implementation of many of the larger alternatives would risk construction-related effects to the endangered pallid sturgeon. Activities in the Fort Randall and Gavins Point segments could result in significant adverse impacts on resources within the Missouri National Recreational River, part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final EIS on the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System Master Water Control Manual, see 04-0363F, Volume 28, Number 3. For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0594D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110147, Final EIS--488 pages, Appendices--998 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Missouri River KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MECHANICAL CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EMERGENT SANDBAR HABITAT IN THE RIVERINE SEGMENTS OF THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - MECHANICAL CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EMERGENT SANDBAR HABITAT IN THE RIVERINE SEGMENTS OF THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 873127689; 14908-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A program to mechanically create and maintain emergent sandbar habitat (ESH) within 440 miles of the upper Missouri River to support least tern and northern Great Plains piping plover populations in Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota is proposed. The ESH program is part of the Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP) and this final programmatic EIS is tiered from the final EIS and Record of Decision for the Master Water Control Manual Review and Update issued in March 2004. Six dams and their associated lakes affect the geomorphologic, hydrologic, ecological, social, cultural, and economic conditions along the river and the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that would have created habitat for least terns and piping plovers are greatly reduced. The least tern was federally listed as endangered in 1985 and the piping plover as threatened in 1986. Construction of ESH is proposed for five riverine segments downstream from four of these dams: 1) the 203.5-mile Fort Peck segment from Fort Peck Dam to the headwaters of Lake Sakakawea near Williston, North Dakota; 2) the 85.9-mile Garrison segment form Garrison Dam to the Lake Oahe headwaters south of Bismarck, North Dakota; 3) the 35-mile Fort Randall segment from Fort Randall Dam to upstream of the Niobrara River confluence; 4) the 17-mile Lewis & Clark segment from upstream of the Niobrara River confluence to the Lewis and Clark Lake headwaters; and 5) the 58.1-mile Gavins Point segment from Gavins Point Dam to Ponca, Nebraska. The alternatives considered represent a range of ESH acreage goals from Alternative 1 (11,886 acres) through Alternative 5 (1,315 acres). Two no action alternatives are considered: the existing ESH program with levels of construction of approximately 150 acres per year, and the No Program Alternative. The preferred alternative would employ an adaptive management implementation process (AMIP) whereby actions would be progressively implemented until the desired biological response is attained and sustained. While the exact number of acres needed to be constructed and replaced is uncertain at this time, the impacts associated with constructing and replacing up to the acreage of Alternative 3.5 (4,370 acres) are assessed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would benefit least tern and piping plover populations by supplementing natural habitat. Adult bird numbers are projected to increase over the life of the program under all action alternatives. New ESH would benefit other shore birds and many native fish species, as well as amphibians and reptiles. The preferred AMIP alternative would provide a flexible approach to meeting identified biological metrics for the least tern and piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Including borrow areas, an estimated 2.75 acres would be impacted for each acre of ESH constructed. Implementation of many of the larger alternatives would risk construction-related effects to the endangered pallid sturgeon. Activities in the Fort Randall and Gavins Point segments could result in significant adverse impacts on resources within the Missouri National Recreational River, part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final EIS on the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System Master Water Control Manual, see 04-0363F, Volume 28, Number 3. For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0594D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110147, Final EIS--488 pages, Appendices--998 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Missouri River KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127689?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MECHANICAL+CREATION+AND+MAINTENANCE+OF+EMERGENT+SANDBAR+HABITAT+IN+THE+RIVERINE+SEGMENTS+OF+THE+UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MECHANICAL+CREATION+AND+MAINTENANCE+OF+EMERGENT+SANDBAR+HABITAT+IN+THE+RIVERINE+SEGMENTS+OF+THE+UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAYFIELD AND ASHLAND COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 871765696; 14916 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan/wilderness management plan for the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Bayfield and Ashland counties, Wisconsin is proposed. Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is located near the tip of the Bayfield Peninsula and includes 21 islands in Lake Superior and a 12-mile-long narrow strip of mainland shoreline. Eighty percent of the land area of the 69,372-acre park was designated as the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness in December 2004. The islands range in size from 3-acre Gull Island to 10,054-acre Stockton Island. The park features pristine stretches of sand beaches and coves; spectacular sea caves; some of the largest stands of remnant old-growth forests in the upper Midwest; a diverse population of birds, mammals, amphibians, and fish; and the largest collection of national register lighthouses and lighthouse complexes in the national park system. The Apostle islands region is in the heart of the ancestral homeland of the Chippewa Ojibwe people. The last comprehensive management plan for the park was completed in 1989. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would restore or rehabilitate two light stations and part of the Long Island light station would be rehabilitated for park staff housing. Additional transportation options would be sought to encourage visitors at Sand, Basswood, and Oak islands and some additional facilities would be developed on these islands. Manitou fish camp would be preserved and stabilized, the cultural landscape would be rehabilitated, and the area would be interpreted. There would be no change in the number of public docks, but some docks would be relocated, improved, or expanded. The Bayfield visitor center would be relocated closer to the water and the Little Sand Bay visitor center would be replaced with a visitor contact station. A new ranger station and accessible beach ramp would be developed at Meyers Beach. Alternative 3 would focus on providing primitive, lake-oriented recreation and education opportunities and would implement slight improvements in access to islands. Under Alternative 4, the emphasis would be on providing greater variety of structured recreation opportunities for visitors with no new transportation options developed. Implementation cost for the preferred alternative is estimated in 2008 dollars at $27.7 million and the net increase for the park's operating budget is estimated at $700,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would clearly define resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved. The plan would provide a framework for decision-making with regard to protecting resources, managing visitor use, and developing facilities in or near the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Sandscapes and shorelines would continue to be affected by visitors and by existing docks. New development under the preferred alternative would impact vegetation and the natural soundscapes in localized areas. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 91-424. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0267D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110155, Final EIS--361 pages, Appendices--228 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Islands KW - Lakes KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Wilderness Management KW - Apostle Islands National Lakeshore KW - Gaylord Nelson Wilderness KW - Lake Superior KW - Wisconsin KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 91-424, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/871765696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bayfield, Wisconsin; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - GEN T1 - CBP Office of International Affairs (INA) Control de Confianza Undercover Operations Trip Report, Mexico City, Mexico, May 16-20, 2011 AN - 1679099939; MD01836 AB - Reports on visit to Mexico to determine needs for undercover operations as part of Control de Confianza program. AU - United States. Department of Homeland Security. Customs and Border Protection. Office of International Affairs AD - United States. Department of Homeland Security. Customs and Border Protection. Office of International Affairs PY - 2011 SP - 3 KW - Control de Confianza Program (Mexico) KW - Internal oversight KW - Police equipment and supplies KW - State and official visits KW - Undercover operations UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1679099939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Adnsa_md&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=CBP+Office+of+International+Affairs+%28INA%29+Control+de+Confianza+Undercover+Operations+Trip+Report%2C+Mexico+City%2C+Mexico%2C+May+16-20%2C+2011&rft.au=United+States.+Department+of+Homeland+Security.+Customs+and+Border+Protection.+Office+of+International+Affairs&rft.aulast=United+States.+Department+of+Homeland+Security.+Customs+and+Border+Protection.+Office+of+International+Affairs&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - Digital National Security Archive N1 - Analyte descriptor - NSA document type: Report N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MECHANICAL CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EMERGENT SANDBAR HABITAT IN THE RIVERINE SEGMENTS OF THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 16379794; 14908 AB - PURPOSE: A program to mechanically create and maintain emergent sandbar habitat (ESH) within 440 miles of the upper Missouri River to support least tern and northern Great Plains piping plover populations in Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota is proposed. The ESH program is part of the Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP) and this final programmatic EIS is tiered from the final EIS and Record of Decision for the Master Water Control Manual Review and Update issued in March 2004. Six dams and their associated lakes affect the geomorphologic, hydrologic, ecological, social, cultural, and economic conditions along the river and the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that would have created habitat for least terns and piping plovers are greatly reduced. The least tern was federally listed as endangered in 1985 and the piping plover as threatened in 1986. Construction of ESH is proposed for five riverine segments downstream from four of these dams: 1) the 203.5-mile Fort Peck segment from Fort Peck Dam to the headwaters of Lake Sakakawea near Williston, North Dakota; 2) the 85.9-mile Garrison segment form Garrison Dam to the Lake Oahe headwaters south of Bismarck, North Dakota; 3) the 35-mile Fort Randall segment from Fort Randall Dam to upstream of the Niobrara River confluence; 4) the 17-mile Lewis & Clark segment from upstream of the Niobrara River confluence to the Lewis and Clark Lake headwaters; and 5) the 58.1-mile Gavins Point segment from Gavins Point Dam to Ponca, Nebraska. The alternatives considered represent a range of ESH acreage goals from Alternative 1 (11,886 acres) through Alternative 5 (1,315 acres). Two no action alternatives are considered: the existing ESH program with levels of construction of approximately 150 acres per year, and the No Program Alternative. The preferred alternative would employ an adaptive management implementation process (AMIP) whereby actions would be progressively implemented until the desired biological response is attained and sustained. While the exact number of acres needed to be constructed and replaced is uncertain at this time, the impacts associated with constructing and replacing up to the acreage of Alternative 3.5 (4,370 acres) are assessed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would benefit least tern and piping plover populations by supplementing natural habitat. Adult bird numbers are projected to increase over the life of the program under all action alternatives. New ESH would benefit other shore birds and many native fish species, as well as amphibians and reptiles. The preferred AMIP alternative would provide a flexible approach to meeting identified biological metrics for the least tern and piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Including borrow areas, an estimated 2.75 acres would be impacted for each acre of ESH constructed. Implementation of many of the larger alternatives would risk construction-related effects to the endangered pallid sturgeon. Activities in the Fort Randall and Gavins Point segments could result in significant adverse impacts on resources within the Missouri National Recreational River, part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final EIS on the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System Master Water Control Manual, see 04-0363F, Volume 28, Number 3. For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0594D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110147, Final EIS--488 pages, Appendices--998 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Missouri River KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 10] T2 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131667; 14899-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility in an unincorporated area of eastern Riverside County, California is proposed. Palen Solar I, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Millenium, LLC, and Chevron Energy Solutions are seeking a right-of-way grant for 5,200 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) facility would consist of two adjacent, independent, and identical units utilizing solar parabolic trough technology to generate 250 megawatts (MW) capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 500 MW. The PSPP would be connected to the Southern California Edison transmission system at the planned Red Bluff substation 10 miles west of the PSPP site. The project would use dry-cooled technology and limited water uses would have an average total requirement of 300 acre feet per year that would be met by pumping groundwater from on-site wells. Key issues include potential disturbance of biological and cultural resources, water use, and changes in landscape views. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates three additional action alternatives, a No Action Alternative, and two CDCA amendment/No Project alternatives. Reconfigured Alternative 1 and Reconfigured Alternative 2 would have the same generation capacity as the proposed project, but would realign the solar fields to reduce impacts to the primary and secondary desert washes that cross the proposed site as well as to sand dune habitat and the Mojave fringe-toed lizard in the northeastern portion of the PSPP site. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate 375 MW and would eliminate the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and the primary desert dry wash wildlife corridor. Reconfigured Alternative 2 is the agency preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy. Project construction would require an average of 566 employees over the 39-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, construction and operation would disturb a total of 4,324 to 4,360 acres depending on the solar field layout. A portion of the project area is within a multi-species wildlife habitat management area designated with the specific role of providing connectivity for the desert tortoise across I-10. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic values in the Chuckwalla Valley, Palen McCoy Wilderness, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness would occur. Visual impacts would be slightly greater under both the Reconfigured Alternatives and the Reduced Acreage Alternative as compared with the proposed project. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0030D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110143, Final EIS (Volume 1)--826 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--860 pages, May 13, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-06 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131667?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 13, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 10] T2 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131662; 14899-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility in an unincorporated area of eastern Riverside County, California is proposed. Palen Solar I, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Millenium, LLC, and Chevron Energy Solutions are seeking a right-of-way grant for 5,200 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) facility would consist of two adjacent, independent, and identical units utilizing solar parabolic trough technology to generate 250 megawatts (MW) capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 500 MW. The PSPP would be connected to the Southern California Edison transmission system at the planned Red Bluff substation 10 miles west of the PSPP site. The project would use dry-cooled technology and limited water uses would have an average total requirement of 300 acre feet per year that would be met by pumping groundwater from on-site wells. Key issues include potential disturbance of biological and cultural resources, water use, and changes in landscape views. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates three additional action alternatives, a No Action Alternative, and two CDCA amendment/No Project alternatives. Reconfigured Alternative 1 and Reconfigured Alternative 2 would have the same generation capacity as the proposed project, but would realign the solar fields to reduce impacts to the primary and secondary desert washes that cross the proposed site as well as to sand dune habitat and the Mojave fringe-toed lizard in the northeastern portion of the PSPP site. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate 375 MW and would eliminate the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and the primary desert dry wash wildlife corridor. Reconfigured Alternative 2 is the agency preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy. Project construction would require an average of 566 employees over the 39-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, construction and operation would disturb a total of 4,324 to 4,360 acres depending on the solar field layout. A portion of the project area is within a multi-species wildlife habitat management area designated with the specific role of providing connectivity for the desert tortoise across I-10. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic values in the Chuckwalla Valley, Palen McCoy Wilderness, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness would occur. Visual impacts would be slightly greater under both the Reconfigured Alternatives and the Reduced Acreage Alternative as compared with the proposed project. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0030D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110143, Final EIS (Volume 1)--826 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--860 pages, May 13, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-06 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131662?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 13, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 10] T2 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131649; 14899-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility in an unincorporated area of eastern Riverside County, California is proposed. Palen Solar I, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Millenium, LLC, and Chevron Energy Solutions are seeking a right-of-way grant for 5,200 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) facility would consist of two adjacent, independent, and identical units utilizing solar parabolic trough technology to generate 250 megawatts (MW) capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 500 MW. The PSPP would be connected to the Southern California Edison transmission system at the planned Red Bluff substation 10 miles west of the PSPP site. The project would use dry-cooled technology and limited water uses would have an average total requirement of 300 acre feet per year that would be met by pumping groundwater from on-site wells. Key issues include potential disturbance of biological and cultural resources, water use, and changes in landscape views. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates three additional action alternatives, a No Action Alternative, and two CDCA amendment/No Project alternatives. Reconfigured Alternative 1 and Reconfigured Alternative 2 would have the same generation capacity as the proposed project, but would realign the solar fields to reduce impacts to the primary and secondary desert washes that cross the proposed site as well as to sand dune habitat and the Mojave fringe-toed lizard in the northeastern portion of the PSPP site. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate 375 MW and would eliminate the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and the primary desert dry wash wildlife corridor. Reconfigured Alternative 2 is the agency preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy. Project construction would require an average of 566 employees over the 39-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, construction and operation would disturb a total of 4,324 to 4,360 acres depending on the solar field layout. A portion of the project area is within a multi-species wildlife habitat management area designated with the specific role of providing connectivity for the desert tortoise across I-10. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic values in the Chuckwalla Valley, Palen McCoy Wilderness, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness would occur. Visual impacts would be slightly greater under both the Reconfigured Alternatives and the Reduced Acreage Alternative as compared with the proposed project. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0030D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110143, Final EIS (Volume 1)--826 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--860 pages, May 13, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-06 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131649?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 13, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 10] T2 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131643; 14899-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility in an unincorporated area of eastern Riverside County, California is proposed. Palen Solar I, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Millenium, LLC, and Chevron Energy Solutions are seeking a right-of-way grant for 5,200 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) facility would consist of two adjacent, independent, and identical units utilizing solar parabolic trough technology to generate 250 megawatts (MW) capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 500 MW. The PSPP would be connected to the Southern California Edison transmission system at the planned Red Bluff substation 10 miles west of the PSPP site. The project would use dry-cooled technology and limited water uses would have an average total requirement of 300 acre feet per year that would be met by pumping groundwater from on-site wells. Key issues include potential disturbance of biological and cultural resources, water use, and changes in landscape views. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates three additional action alternatives, a No Action Alternative, and two CDCA amendment/No Project alternatives. Reconfigured Alternative 1 and Reconfigured Alternative 2 would have the same generation capacity as the proposed project, but would realign the solar fields to reduce impacts to the primary and secondary desert washes that cross the proposed site as well as to sand dune habitat and the Mojave fringe-toed lizard in the northeastern portion of the PSPP site. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate 375 MW and would eliminate the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and the primary desert dry wash wildlife corridor. Reconfigured Alternative 2 is the agency preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy. Project construction would require an average of 566 employees over the 39-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, construction and operation would disturb a total of 4,324 to 4,360 acres depending on the solar field layout. A portion of the project area is within a multi-species wildlife habitat management area designated with the specific role of providing connectivity for the desert tortoise across I-10. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic values in the Chuckwalla Valley, Palen McCoy Wilderness, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness would occur. Visual impacts would be slightly greater under both the Reconfigured Alternatives and the Reduced Acreage Alternative as compared with the proposed project. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0030D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110143, Final EIS (Volume 1)--826 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--860 pages, May 13, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-06 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131643?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 13, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 10] T2 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131635; 14899-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility in an unincorporated area of eastern Riverside County, California is proposed. Palen Solar I, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Millenium, LLC, and Chevron Energy Solutions are seeking a right-of-way grant for 5,200 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) facility would consist of two adjacent, independent, and identical units utilizing solar parabolic trough technology to generate 250 megawatts (MW) capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 500 MW. The PSPP would be connected to the Southern California Edison transmission system at the planned Red Bluff substation 10 miles west of the PSPP site. The project would use dry-cooled technology and limited water uses would have an average total requirement of 300 acre feet per year that would be met by pumping groundwater from on-site wells. Key issues include potential disturbance of biological and cultural resources, water use, and changes in landscape views. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates three additional action alternatives, a No Action Alternative, and two CDCA amendment/No Project alternatives. Reconfigured Alternative 1 and Reconfigured Alternative 2 would have the same generation capacity as the proposed project, but would realign the solar fields to reduce impacts to the primary and secondary desert washes that cross the proposed site as well as to sand dune habitat and the Mojave fringe-toed lizard in the northeastern portion of the PSPP site. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate 375 MW and would eliminate the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and the primary desert dry wash wildlife corridor. Reconfigured Alternative 2 is the agency preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy. Project construction would require an average of 566 employees over the 39-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, construction and operation would disturb a total of 4,324 to 4,360 acres depending on the solar field layout. A portion of the project area is within a multi-species wildlife habitat management area designated with the specific role of providing connectivity for the desert tortoise across I-10. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic values in the Chuckwalla Valley, Palen McCoy Wilderness, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness would occur. Visual impacts would be slightly greater under both the Reconfigured Alternatives and the Reduced Acreage Alternative as compared with the proposed project. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0030D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110143, Final EIS (Volume 1)--826 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--860 pages, May 13, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-06 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131635?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 13, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 10] T2 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130016; 14899-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility in an unincorporated area of eastern Riverside County, California is proposed. Palen Solar I, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Millenium, LLC, and Chevron Energy Solutions are seeking a right-of-way grant for 5,200 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) facility would consist of two adjacent, independent, and identical units utilizing solar parabolic trough technology to generate 250 megawatts (MW) capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 500 MW. The PSPP would be connected to the Southern California Edison transmission system at the planned Red Bluff substation 10 miles west of the PSPP site. The project would use dry-cooled technology and limited water uses would have an average total requirement of 300 acre feet per year that would be met by pumping groundwater from on-site wells. Key issues include potential disturbance of biological and cultural resources, water use, and changes in landscape views. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates three additional action alternatives, a No Action Alternative, and two CDCA amendment/No Project alternatives. Reconfigured Alternative 1 and Reconfigured Alternative 2 would have the same generation capacity as the proposed project, but would realign the solar fields to reduce impacts to the primary and secondary desert washes that cross the proposed site as well as to sand dune habitat and the Mojave fringe-toed lizard in the northeastern portion of the PSPP site. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate 375 MW and would eliminate the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and the primary desert dry wash wildlife corridor. Reconfigured Alternative 2 is the agency preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy. Project construction would require an average of 566 employees over the 39-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, construction and operation would disturb a total of 4,324 to 4,360 acres depending on the solar field layout. A portion of the project area is within a multi-species wildlife habitat management area designated with the specific role of providing connectivity for the desert tortoise across I-10. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic values in the Chuckwalla Valley, Palen McCoy Wilderness, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness would occur. Visual impacts would be slightly greater under both the Reconfigured Alternatives and the Reduced Acreage Alternative as compared with the proposed project. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0030D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110143, Final EIS (Volume 1)--826 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--860 pages, May 13, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-06 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 13, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 10] T2 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127509; 14899-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility in an unincorporated area of eastern Riverside County, California is proposed. Palen Solar I, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Millenium, LLC, and Chevron Energy Solutions are seeking a right-of-way grant for 5,200 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) facility would consist of two adjacent, independent, and identical units utilizing solar parabolic trough technology to generate 250 megawatts (MW) capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 500 MW. The PSPP would be connected to the Southern California Edison transmission system at the planned Red Bluff substation 10 miles west of the PSPP site. The project would use dry-cooled technology and limited water uses would have an average total requirement of 300 acre feet per year that would be met by pumping groundwater from on-site wells. Key issues include potential disturbance of biological and cultural resources, water use, and changes in landscape views. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates three additional action alternatives, a No Action Alternative, and two CDCA amendment/No Project alternatives. Reconfigured Alternative 1 and Reconfigured Alternative 2 would have the same generation capacity as the proposed project, but would realign the solar fields to reduce impacts to the primary and secondary desert washes that cross the proposed site as well as to sand dune habitat and the Mojave fringe-toed lizard in the northeastern portion of the PSPP site. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate 375 MW and would eliminate the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and the primary desert dry wash wildlife corridor. Reconfigured Alternative 2 is the agency preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy. Project construction would require an average of 566 employees over the 39-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, construction and operation would disturb a total of 4,324 to 4,360 acres depending on the solar field layout. A portion of the project area is within a multi-species wildlife habitat management area designated with the specific role of providing connectivity for the desert tortoise across I-10. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic values in the Chuckwalla Valley, Palen McCoy Wilderness, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness would occur. Visual impacts would be slightly greater under both the Reconfigured Alternatives and the Reduced Acreage Alternative as compared with the proposed project. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0030D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110143, Final EIS (Volume 1)--826 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--860 pages, May 13, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-06 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127509?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 13, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 10] T2 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127496; 14899-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility in an unincorporated area of eastern Riverside County, California is proposed. Palen Solar I, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Millenium, LLC, and Chevron Energy Solutions are seeking a right-of-way grant for 5,200 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) facility would consist of two adjacent, independent, and identical units utilizing solar parabolic trough technology to generate 250 megawatts (MW) capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 500 MW. The PSPP would be connected to the Southern California Edison transmission system at the planned Red Bluff substation 10 miles west of the PSPP site. The project would use dry-cooled technology and limited water uses would have an average total requirement of 300 acre feet per year that would be met by pumping groundwater from on-site wells. Key issues include potential disturbance of biological and cultural resources, water use, and changes in landscape views. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates three additional action alternatives, a No Action Alternative, and two CDCA amendment/No Project alternatives. Reconfigured Alternative 1 and Reconfigured Alternative 2 would have the same generation capacity as the proposed project, but would realign the solar fields to reduce impacts to the primary and secondary desert washes that cross the proposed site as well as to sand dune habitat and the Mojave fringe-toed lizard in the northeastern portion of the PSPP site. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate 375 MW and would eliminate the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and the primary desert dry wash wildlife corridor. Reconfigured Alternative 2 is the agency preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy. Project construction would require an average of 566 employees over the 39-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, construction and operation would disturb a total of 4,324 to 4,360 acres depending on the solar field layout. A portion of the project area is within a multi-species wildlife habitat management area designated with the specific role of providing connectivity for the desert tortoise across I-10. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic values in the Chuckwalla Valley, Palen McCoy Wilderness, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness would occur. Visual impacts would be slightly greater under both the Reconfigured Alternatives and the Reduced Acreage Alternative as compared with the proposed project. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0030D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110143, Final EIS (Volume 1)--826 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--860 pages, May 13, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-06 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 13, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 10] T2 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127488; 14899-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility in an unincorporated area of eastern Riverside County, California is proposed. Palen Solar I, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Millenium, LLC, and Chevron Energy Solutions are seeking a right-of-way grant for 5,200 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) facility would consist of two adjacent, independent, and identical units utilizing solar parabolic trough technology to generate 250 megawatts (MW) capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 500 MW. The PSPP would be connected to the Southern California Edison transmission system at the planned Red Bluff substation 10 miles west of the PSPP site. The project would use dry-cooled technology and limited water uses would have an average total requirement of 300 acre feet per year that would be met by pumping groundwater from on-site wells. Key issues include potential disturbance of biological and cultural resources, water use, and changes in landscape views. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates three additional action alternatives, a No Action Alternative, and two CDCA amendment/No Project alternatives. Reconfigured Alternative 1 and Reconfigured Alternative 2 would have the same generation capacity as the proposed project, but would realign the solar fields to reduce impacts to the primary and secondary desert washes that cross the proposed site as well as to sand dune habitat and the Mojave fringe-toed lizard in the northeastern portion of the PSPP site. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate 375 MW and would eliminate the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and the primary desert dry wash wildlife corridor. Reconfigured Alternative 2 is the agency preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy. Project construction would require an average of 566 employees over the 39-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, construction and operation would disturb a total of 4,324 to 4,360 acres depending on the solar field layout. A portion of the project area is within a multi-species wildlife habitat management area designated with the specific role of providing connectivity for the desert tortoise across I-10. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic values in the Chuckwalla Valley, Palen McCoy Wilderness, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness would occur. Visual impacts would be slightly greater under both the Reconfigured Alternatives and the Reduced Acreage Alternative as compared with the proposed project. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0030D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110143, Final EIS (Volume 1)--826 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--860 pages, May 13, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-06 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127488?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 13, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 870996172; 14899 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility in an unincorporated area of eastern Riverside County, California is proposed. Palen Solar I, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Millenium, LLC, and Chevron Energy Solutions are seeking a right-of-way grant for 5,200 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) facility would consist of two adjacent, independent, and identical units utilizing solar parabolic trough technology to generate 250 megawatts (MW) capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 500 MW. The PSPP would be connected to the Southern California Edison transmission system at the planned Red Bluff substation 10 miles west of the PSPP site. The project would use dry-cooled technology and limited water uses would have an average total requirement of 300 acre feet per year that would be met by pumping groundwater from on-site wells. Key issues include potential disturbance of biological and cultural resources, water use, and changes in landscape views. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates three additional action alternatives, a No Action Alternative, and two CDCA amendment/No Project alternatives. Reconfigured Alternative 1 and Reconfigured Alternative 2 would have the same generation capacity as the proposed project, but would realign the solar fields to reduce impacts to the primary and secondary desert washes that cross the proposed site as well as to sand dune habitat and the Mojave fringe-toed lizard in the northeastern portion of the PSPP site. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate 375 MW and would eliminate the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and the primary desert dry wash wildlife corridor. Reconfigured Alternative 2 is the agency preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy. Project construction would require an average of 566 employees over the 39-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, construction and operation would disturb a total of 4,324 to 4,360 acres depending on the solar field layout. A portion of the project area is within a multi-species wildlife habitat management area designated with the specific role of providing connectivity for the desert tortoise across I-10. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic values in the Chuckwalla Valley, Palen McCoy Wilderness, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness would occur. Visual impacts would be slightly greater under both the Reconfigured Alternatives and the Reduced Acreage Alternative as compared with the proposed project. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0030D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110143, Final EIS (Volume 1)--826 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--860 pages, May 13, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 11-06 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/870996172?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-05-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 13, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORAL REEF RESTORATION PLAN, PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK, HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CORAL REEF RESTORATION PLAN, PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK, HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA. AN - 873129950; 14889-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A coral reef restoration plan that would use a systematic approach for addressing injuries to coral reefs caused by vessel groundings within Biscayne National Park, Homestead, Florida is proposed. Biscayne National Park is approximately 22 miles long, with its northern boundary near Key Biscayne, and its southern boundary near Key Largo. The western boundary is defined by the landward extent of a mature red mangrove forest that forms a narrow band along the western shore of Biscayne Bay. The eastern boundary follows the 60-foot-depth contour and the approximate width, from near-shore to off-shore environment is 14 miles. Biscayne National Park is the largest marine park in the National Park System and 95 percent of its 173,000 acres are submerged. It preserves a unique, sensitive marine environment that is an important component of the south Florida ecosystem and economy. Approximately 200 vessel (recreational and commercial) groundings occur annually in the park, causing injuries to submerged resources. This final programmatic EIS considers the proposed action and a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). Currently, resource managers evaluate the impacts of coral reef restoration actions and specific restoration methods when planning and implementing restoration at each vessel-grounding incident. To address each coral injury under the preferred programmatic alternative (Alternative 2), the most appropriate restoration actions and specific restoration methods would be selected from a range of methods that already have had their impacts evaluated programmatically. Ten reasonable and common restoration actions, some of which include a variety of methods, were identified and evaluated by an interdisciplinary team for inclusion in the "toolbox" proposed as a means of facilitating and expediting the selection of restoration actions at specific injury sites: 1) no active restoration/no monitoring; 2) monitoring only; 3) reattach biota; 4) biological seeding; 5) remove bottom paint/fouling substance from reef; 6) seal fractures; 7) stabilize displaced substrate; 8) stabilize displaced substrate with artificial structures; 9) stabilize rubble; and 10) rubble removal from injury site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for a systematic approach to addressing coral reef injuries in the park and the timeframe required to evaluate impacts of restoration actions would be minimized under the preferred alternative. All restoration actions under consideration would improve reef resources within the park and help to create a stable, self-sustaining reef environment of similar topography and surface complexity to that which existed prior to any injury. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Restoration actions would have short-term minor impacts as a result of diver contact and/or restoration equipment contact. Fish could be displaced temporarily from essential habitat. Turbidity caused during site preparation, bottom paint removal, and/or use of bonding agents could cause minor adverse effects. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0209D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110133, 301 pages, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Chemical Spills KW - Conservation KW - Corals KW - Fish KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Reefs KW - Ships KW - Toxicity KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Biscayne National Park KW - Florida KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORAL+REEF+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HOMESTEAD%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CORAL+REEF+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HOMESTEAD%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Homestead, Florida; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORAL REEF RESTORATION PLAN, PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK, HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA. AN - 16386995; 14889 AB - PURPOSE: A coral reef restoration plan that would use a systematic approach for addressing injuries to coral reefs caused by vessel groundings within Biscayne National Park, Homestead, Florida is proposed. Biscayne National Park is approximately 22 miles long, with its northern boundary near Key Biscayne, and its southern boundary near Key Largo. The western boundary is defined by the landward extent of a mature red mangrove forest that forms a narrow band along the western shore of Biscayne Bay. The eastern boundary follows the 60-foot-depth contour and the approximate width, from near-shore to off-shore environment is 14 miles. Biscayne National Park is the largest marine park in the National Park System and 95 percent of its 173,000 acres are submerged. It preserves a unique, sensitive marine environment that is an important component of the south Florida ecosystem and economy. Approximately 200 vessel (recreational and commercial) groundings occur annually in the park, causing injuries to submerged resources. This final programmatic EIS considers the proposed action and a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). Currently, resource managers evaluate the impacts of coral reef restoration actions and specific restoration methods when planning and implementing restoration at each vessel-grounding incident. To address each coral injury under the preferred programmatic alternative (Alternative 2), the most appropriate restoration actions and specific restoration methods would be selected from a range of methods that already have had their impacts evaluated programmatically. Ten reasonable and common restoration actions, some of which include a variety of methods, were identified and evaluated by an interdisciplinary team for inclusion in the "toolbox" proposed as a means of facilitating and expediting the selection of restoration actions at specific injury sites: 1) no active restoration/no monitoring; 2) monitoring only; 3) reattach biota; 4) biological seeding; 5) remove bottom paint/fouling substance from reef; 6) seal fractures; 7) stabilize displaced substrate; 8) stabilize displaced substrate with artificial structures; 9) stabilize rubble; and 10) rubble removal from injury site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for a systematic approach to addressing coral reef injuries in the park and the timeframe required to evaluate impacts of restoration actions would be minimized under the preferred alternative. All restoration actions under consideration would improve reef resources within the park and help to create a stable, self-sustaining reef environment of similar topography and surface complexity to that which existed prior to any injury. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Restoration actions would have short-term minor impacts as a result of diver contact and/or restoration equipment contact. Fish could be displaced temporarily from essential habitat. Turbidity caused during site preparation, bottom paint removal, and/or use of bonding agents could cause minor adverse effects. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0209D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110133, 301 pages, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Chemical Spills KW - Conservation KW - Corals KW - Fish KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Reefs KW - Ships KW - Toxicity KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Biscayne National Park KW - Florida KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16386995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORAL+REEF+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HOMESTEAD%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CORAL+REEF+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HOMESTEAD%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Homestead, Florida; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133854; 14887-1_0034 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133848; 14887-1_0024 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133453; 14887-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133453?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133448; 14887-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133448?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133438; 14887-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133431; 14887-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133421; 14887-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133415; 14887-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133409; 14887-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133400; 14887-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133400?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133387; 14887-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133376; 14887-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133376?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132586; 14887-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132586?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132577; 14887-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132577?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132565; 14887-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132477; 14887-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132477?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132134; 14887-1_0033 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132131; 14887-1_0032 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132131?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132024; 14887-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131352; 14887-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131352?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130831; 14887-1_0027 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130822; 14887-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130822?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130804; 14887-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130804?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130561; 14887-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130561?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130523; 14887-1_0031 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130523?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130472; 14887-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130472?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130458; 14887-1_0022 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130402; 14887-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130402?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130384; 14887-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130384?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130287; 14887-1_0030 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130287?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130273; 14887-1_0029 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129941; 14887-1_0028 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129941?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129913; 14887-1_0026 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 34] T2 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129898; 14887-1_0021 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129898?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16369482; 14887 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term comprehensive effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river is proposed. The San Joaquin River is Californias second longest river and discharges to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of Friant Dam which diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. On September 13, 2006, terms and conditions of a settlement were reached and subsequently approved by the Eastern District Court of California. The proposed action is to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) consistent with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the Settlement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A Recovered Water Account (RWA) and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. Areas of controversy include the potential for groundwater seepage to occur within the restoration area as a result of interim and restoration flows, uncertainty regarding the condition of levees, the likelihood of successful restoration of Chinook salmon, and the ability to release full restoration flows under the schedule anticipated in the Settlement. This draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. Alternatives A1 and A2 would convey 475 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Delta using existing facilities. Alternatives B1 and B2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water using existing facilities along the San Joaquin River between the Merced River and the Delta. Actions could include modifications to existing off-river facilities, such as expansion of existing canals or construction of lift stations on existing canals. Alternatives C1 and C2 would convey 475 cfs and 4,500 cfs, respectively, and would recapture water flows with or without new pumping infrastructure located below the confluence of the Merced River. New infrastructure could include expansion of existing pumping plants, or the construction of a new plant. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 110131, Draft EIS--1,756 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16369482?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 79 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133844; 14876-0_0079 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 79 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133844?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 69 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133841; 14876-0_0069 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 69 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 68 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133835; 14876-0_0068 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 68 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 67 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133832; 14876-0_0067 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 67 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133832?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 66 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133827; 14876-0_0066 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 66 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 65 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133824; 14876-0_0065 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 65 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 64 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133817; 14876-0_0064 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 64 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 63 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133813; 14876-0_0063 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 63 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133813?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 50 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133809; 14876-0_0050 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133809?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 49 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133801; 14876-0_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133801?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 48 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133792; 14876-0_0048 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 41 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133788; 14876-0_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 40 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133785; 14876-0_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133785?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 39 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133780; 14876-0_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133780?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 38 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133776; 14876-0_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133776?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 37 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133773; 14876-0_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 30 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133771; 14876-0_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 26 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133764; 14876-0_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133764?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 25 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133760; 14876-0_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133760?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 24 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133756; 14876-0_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133756?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 21 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133755; 14876-0_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 20 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133750; 14876-0_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133750?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 19 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133745; 14876-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133745?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 78 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133541; 14876-0_0078 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 78 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133541?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 77 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133537; 14876-0_0077 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 77 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133537?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 76 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133532; 14876-0_0076 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 76 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133532?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 72 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133526; 14876-0_0072 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 72 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133526?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 71 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133522; 14876-0_0071 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 71 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133522?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 70 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133519; 14876-0_0070 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 70 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 58 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133515; 14876-0_0058 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133515?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 57 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133509; 14876-0_0057 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133509?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%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, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 56 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133503; 14876-0_0056 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133503?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%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, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 44 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133490; 14876-0_0044 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133490?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 43 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133477; 14876-0_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133477?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 42 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133466; 14876-0_0042 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 28 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133463; 14876-0_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133463?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 27 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873133454; 14876-0_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873133454?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 75 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132923; 14876-0_0075 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 75 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 74 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132916; 14876-0_0074 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 74 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 73 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132912; 14876-0_0073 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 73 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2011 WESTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 218, TEXAS (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2007). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2011 WESTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 218, TEXAS (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2007). AN - 873132908; 14882-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Proposed Lease Sale 218, the remaining areawide oil and gas lease sale in the Western Planning Area (WPA) of the Gulf of Mexico, is analyzed in light of new information available since a Multisale EIS and a 2009-2012 supplemental EIS were published for the five-year Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program (2007-2012). Proposed WPA Lease Sale 218 is scheduled to be held in 2011. The WPA sale area encompasses 28.7 million acres located 10 miles offshore of Texas and extends seaward to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone in water depths up to 10,978 feet. This draft supplemental EIS addresses the potential changes to baseline conditions that took place in 2010 as a result of: 1) the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) event between April 20 and July 15, the period when oil flowed from the Macondo well in Mississippi Canyon Block 252; 2) September 19, when the well was declared dead after the bottom kill procedure; and 3) the immediate and acute impacts that have been reported or surveyed since that time. Key issues related to OCS exploration, development, production, and transportation activities include oil spills, wetlands loss, air emissions, discharges, water quality degradation, trash and debris, structure and pipeline emplacement activities, platform removal, vessel and helicopter traffic, multiple-use conflicts, support services, population fluctuations, demands on public services, land-use planning, tourism, aesthetic interference, cultural impacts, environmental justice, and consistency with coastal zone management programs. Other issues include impacts from the DWH event and from past and future hurricanes on environmental and socioeconomic resources, and on coastal and offshore infrastructure. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the WPA lease sale would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA for oil and gas operations, with the following exceptions: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap portion of the 1.4-nautical-mile buffer zone north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of this proposed WPA lease sale is 0.222 to 0.423 billion barrels of oil and 1.495 to 2.647 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Alternative B would exclude the unleased blocks near biologically sensitive topographic features. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement has determined that the conclusions as presented in the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS for a WPA lease sale remain valid. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Proposed Lease Sale 218 is the last sale in the WPA planning area of the five-year program and would provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on blocks in the Gulf of Mexico OCS in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. These resources would help the nation in its effort to become independent of foreign sources of fossil fuel energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities related to normal development of the leased resources would be minimal. Pipeline landfalls would result in disturbance and destruction of near-shore habitat, dry shoreline habitat and coastal wetland habitat. Accidental gas leaks or spills of oil or toxins related to hydrocarbon resource extraction or pipeline transport could result in significant damage to air quality, coastal and marine waters and the associated habitat systems, coastal barrier beaches and dunes, wetlands, seagrass communities, topographic features, deepwater benthic communities, marine mammals, sea turtles, fish and essential fish habitat and associated commercial and recreational fishing operations, and coastal recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the 2009-2012 final supplemental EIS, see 08-0389F, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110126, 801 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 06-49 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Oil Spills KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132908?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2011+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+218%2C+TEXAS+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2007%29.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2011+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+218%2C+TEXAS+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 55 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132906; 14876-0_0055 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 54 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132901; 14876-0_0054 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 53 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132891; 14876-0_0053 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132891?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 52 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132881; 14876-0_0052 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132881?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 47 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132877; 14876-0_0047 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 45 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132857; 14876-0_0045 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132857?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 36 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132851; 14876-0_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132851?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 35 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132840; 14876-0_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 23 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132822; 14876-0_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132822?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132687; 14876-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132687?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 33 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132103; 14876-0_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132103?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 32 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132088; 14876-0_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132088?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 17 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873132063; 14876-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873132063?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 51 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873131777; 14876-0_0051 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873131777?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 62 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873131473; 14876-0_0062 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873131473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 61 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873131454; 14876-0_0061 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873131454?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 60 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873131439; 14876-0_0060 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873131439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873131322; 14876-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873131322?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 12 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873130792; 14876-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873130792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 11 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873130774; 14876-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873130774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 4 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873130758; 14876-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873130758?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 10 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873130548; 14876-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873130548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 9 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873130530; 14876-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873130530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 16 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873130507; 14876-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873130507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 6 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873130438; 14876-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873130438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 5 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873130417; 14876-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873130417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873130356; 14876-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873130356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 15 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873130252; 14876-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873130252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 13 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873129882; 14876-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873129882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 14 of 79] T2 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 873129250; 14876-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/873129250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2011 WESTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 218, TEXAS (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2007). AN - 868373245; 14882 AB - PURPOSE: Proposed Lease Sale 218, the remaining areawide oil and gas lease sale in the Western Planning Area (WPA) of the Gulf of Mexico, is analyzed in light of new information available since a Multisale EIS and a 2009-2012 supplemental EIS were published for the five-year Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program (2007-2012). Proposed WPA Lease Sale 218 is scheduled to be held in 2011. The WPA sale area encompasses 28.7 million acres located 10 miles offshore of Texas and extends seaward to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone in water depths up to 10,978 feet. This draft supplemental EIS addresses the potential changes to baseline conditions that took place in 2010 as a result of: 1) the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) event between April 20 and July 15, the period when oil flowed from the Macondo well in Mississippi Canyon Block 252; 2) September 19, when the well was declared dead after the bottom kill procedure; and 3) the immediate and acute impacts that have been reported or surveyed since that time. Key issues related to OCS exploration, development, production, and transportation activities include oil spills, wetlands loss, air emissions, discharges, water quality degradation, trash and debris, structure and pipeline emplacement activities, platform removal, vessel and helicopter traffic, multiple-use conflicts, support services, population fluctuations, demands on public services, land-use planning, tourism, aesthetic interference, cultural impacts, environmental justice, and consistency with coastal zone management programs. Other issues include impacts from the DWH event and from past and future hurricanes on environmental and socioeconomic resources, and on coastal and offshore infrastructure. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the WPA lease sale would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA for oil and gas operations, with the following exceptions: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap portion of the 1.4-nautical-mile buffer zone north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of this proposed WPA lease sale is 0.222 to 0.423 billion barrels of oil and 1.495 to 2.647 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Alternative B would exclude the unleased blocks near biologically sensitive topographic features. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement has determined that the conclusions as presented in the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS for a WPA lease sale remain valid. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Proposed Lease Sale 218 is the last sale in the WPA planning area of the five-year program and would provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on blocks in the Gulf of Mexico OCS in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. These resources would help the nation in its effort to become independent of foreign sources of fossil fuel energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities related to normal development of the leased resources would be minimal. Pipeline landfalls would result in disturbance and destruction of near-shore habitat, dry shoreline habitat and coastal wetland habitat. Accidental gas leaks or spills of oil or toxins related to hydrocarbon resource extraction or pipeline transport could result in significant damage to air quality, coastal and marine waters and the associated habitat systems, coastal barrier beaches and dunes, wetlands, seagrass communities, topographic features, deepwater benthic communities, marine mammals, sea turtles, fish and essential fish habitat and associated commercial and recreational fishing operations, and coastal recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the 2009-2012 final supplemental EIS, see 08-0389F, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110126, 801 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 06-49 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Oil Spills KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868373245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2011+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+218%2C+TEXAS+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2007%29.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2011+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+218%2C+TEXAS+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 16370866; 14876 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. Within the planning area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, the BLM is proposing to revise three existing plans, the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs, under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices currently operate. Planning issues focus on watershed and air management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild horses, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. This draft EIS considers four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. Measures would include the designation of one Special Management Area, two Management Areas, and 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative D would also emphasize moderate constraints on resource uses, reclamation, and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Delineated Oil and Gas Management Areas, although smaller in size than Alternative C, would be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to retaining the current National Back Country Byway, one primitive Back Country Byway would be designated. Alternative D would also provide similar but less protective measures than Alternative B for the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark, Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and other trails. Nine areas previously identified as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be designated as Wild Lands. Motorized vehicle use would be limited within six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and prohibited in four WSAs. Vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and seasonal wildlife restrictions would include avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat, extending greater sage-grouse seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, and extending greater sage-grouse lek buffers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. Comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing resources and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110120, Volume 1--543 pages, Volume 2--573 pages, Volume 3--592 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/003+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management 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/16370866?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - GEN T1 - Annual Performance Report 2009-2010. Bureau of Indian Education. Submitted February 1, 2011. Revised Clarification, April 18, 2011. APR Template-Part B (4) AN - 1697503580; ED554193 AB - During SY 2009-2010, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) continued their efforts to improve the validity and reliability of data reporting. BIE data collections are dependent on school level entry (self reporting) into the Native American Student Information System (NASIS) or into the Bureau's Annual Report from the schools. In addition, data is gathered and analyzed through the compliance monitoring process conducted annually. Through on site activities and regularly scheduled webinar training sessions, schools have increased their level of understanding of data requirements and analysis. The BIE has changed the measurements to align with the reporting requirements under ESEA. The Bureau of Indian Education oversees a total of 183 elementary and secondary schools, located on 64 reservations in 23 states. Of these, 59 are BIE-operated and 124 are Tribally-operated under BIE contracts or grants. The Bureau also funds or operates off-reservation boarding schools and peripheral dormitories near reservations for students attending public schools. The BIE provides funds to all schools however tribal groups have been granted or contracted to operate the tribally controlled schools. Both category of schools are treated the same relative to program management, monitoring and support. Due to legally defined relationships, sanctions that are available to State school systems are not available within the BIE. Y1 - 2011/04/18/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Apr 18 SP - 88 PB - Bureau of Indian Education. 1849 C Street NW Mail Stop 3609MIB, Washington, DC 20240. KW - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) KW - Elementary Secondary Education KW - High Schools KW - Secondary Education KW - Higher Education KW - Postsecondary Education KW - Preschool Education KW - Early Childhood Education KW - Elementary Education KW - Special Education KW - Employment KW - Student Placement KW - Dropouts KW - Tribally Controlled Education KW - Reading Achievement KW - Disabilities KW - Federal Programs KW - Enrollment KW - Compliance (Legal) KW - American Indian Education KW - Individualized Education Programs KW - Preschool Children KW - Graduation Rate KW - Boarding Schools KW - Elementary Schools KW - Suspension KW - Educational Indicators KW - Mathematics Achievement KW - Student Participation KW - Referral KW - Expulsion KW - Parent Participation KW - Student Evaluation KW - Disproportionate Representation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1697503580?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - GEN T1 - Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Education State Performance Plan. Submitted February 1, 2011 (Resubmitted April 18, 2011). SPP Template-Part B AN - 1697500699; ED554039 AB - The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) funds schools located on 63 reservations in 23 states across the nation. Of the 183 schools, 59 are Bureau operated and 124 are tribally controlled. One-hundred and sixteen schools provide instructional programs, 55 provide instructional as well as boarding services and 12 peripheral dormitories provide only boarding services (these students attend the local public schools). Seven schools are Off Reservation Boarding Schools (ORBS) that provide both instructional and boarding facilities to students from many different states. The BIE is not a school system organized into districts as are the majority of the states. The 184 Bureau funded schools are organized under 22 Education Line Offices. The smallest line office has two schools providing academic services and one boarding facility where the students receive their academic services in a public school. The largest line office serves 16 schools. In the BIE, schools are also meeting the reporting requirements of the LEA. This difference is greater than just terminology in that the Education Line Officers do not have the same line authority over the LEA/schools in their line office as do district superintendents in the public school system. The definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) that all BIE funded schools will follow is that of the state in which the school is located (25 CFR 30.104). This has been an important factor in the development of the State Performance Plan (SPP) due to the fact that there are significant variances between states in expectations for many indicators such as graduation rates, achievement cut scores, attendance and others. With the need to align targets with ESEA reporting and the need to use common standards and measures wherever possible the SPP targets are often written in a format that allows adjustment for the expectations of the state in which the school is located. This 2011 revision of the State Performance Plan (SPP) aligns reporting with what is used to report under the ESEA. Y1 - 2011/04/18/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Apr 18 SP - 83 PB - Bureau of Indian Education. 1849 C Street NW Mail Stop 3609MIB, Washington, DC 20240. KW - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) KW - Elementary Secondary Education KW - American Indian Reservations KW - Reading Tests KW - Employment Level KW - Special Education KW - Improvement Programs KW - Measurement Techniques KW - Reading Achievement KW - Transitional Programs KW - Federal Programs KW - Mathematics Tests KW - Educational Planning KW - Educational Resources KW - American Indian Education KW - Individualized Education Programs KW - Measurement Objectives KW - Graduation Rate KW - Program Descriptions KW - State Policy KW - Suspension KW - Educational Indicators KW - Mathematics Achievement KW - Dropout Rate KW - Student Participation KW - Language Arts KW - Referral KW - Benchmarking KW - Educational Improvement KW - Eligibility KW - Expulsion KW - Enrichment Activities KW - Parent Participation KW - Parent Attitudes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1697500699?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131368; 14873-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 550-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic energy-generating project known as the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (DSSF) in Riverside County, California are proposed. Desert Sunlight Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar Development, Inc., has applied for a right-of-way (ROW) grant from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the project. The DSSF, most of the corridor for the project's proposed 220-kilovolt (kV) interconnection transmission line (Gen-Tie Line), and one of two potential sites being considered for a new 500/220-kV substation would be located on lands administered by the BLM. The Red Bluff Substation would be owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and would interconnect with the existing SCE Devers-Palo Verde 1 transmission line. The applicant has also applied to the Department of Energy for a loan guarantee and the ROW authorization would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project area is located six miles north of Interstate 10 and consists of largely vacant, undeveloped, and relatively flat land in the Chuckwalla Valley of the Sonoran Desert. Three full action alternatives and three No Action/No Project alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), which is the preferred alternative, the three main project components would require a total of 4,176 acres and the Red Bluff Substation would be located on 76 acres of land four miles southeast of State Route 177. Other substation-related project elements would require an additional 96 acres. Alternative 2 would require 4,110 acres and would use a western location on a 160-acre parcel of private land for the proposed substation. The Reduced Solar Farm Footprint Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve a reduced power facility of 413 MW requiring 3,303 acres. The Red Bluff Substation would be situated as under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, all components of the project would be denied and no CDCA Plan amendment would be approved. With Alternative 5, the project would not be approved and the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the project area as unsuitable for future large-scale solar energy development. Under Alternative 6, the project would not be approved, but the CDCA plan would be amended to identify the project area as suitable for future solar energy development. Project construction is expected to take 26 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide safe and reliable electrical power and help meet policy goals by approving and financing production of renewable energy power on public lands. Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to the desert tortoise relative to the other action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would result in permanent removal of 4,066 acres of creosote bush scrub, 96 acres of desert dry wash woodland, and six special status plant species, and permanent disturbance of 190 acres of the Chuckwalla designated wildlife management area and 187 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat. Construction activities and associated vehicle traffic would generate emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants in excess of regional significance thresholds. Changes in the site's geomorphic conditions and hydrology could adversely affect hydrology and water quality of desert dry wash woodland located downstream. At least 57 cultural sites and one historic district would be impacted. Changes to the characteristic landscape would alter visual resources, LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0284D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110117, Volume I--474 pages, Volume II--680 pages, Volume III--485 pages, Volume IV--474 pages, Volume V--892 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-39 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Historic Districts KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Noise Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131368?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 11] T2 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873130115; 14868-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine (formerly Eddy Potash or PCA) located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The project area includes a total of 38,453 acres, of which 31,439 acres is on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres is managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. This draft EIS analyzes three action alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A, which is the proposed action, would use mostly non-potable water from the Rustler Formation, and would require the installation of 82 miles of surface pipelines within almost 38 miles of new rights-of-way, construction and operation of up to seven groundwater pumping wells and 14 monitoring wells, construction of an evaporation pond system and a new processing mill, and pumping of a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater from combined sources. Under Alternative B, additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the saline water with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. Intrepids existing pipelines from the Caprock wells would be improved. Fewer Rustler wells and pipelines would be developed, but all of the other facilities and process plans would be the same as for the proposed action. Alternative C would involve burying all pipelines. The layout of the pipeline system would be the same as that for the proposed action. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: disturb 980 acres; increase the potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River; and result in the loss of 120 animal unit months of livestock grazing. The in-situ process would put 4,354 acres at risk for additional subsidence of about 0.6 foot in addition to the 17,000 acres of mining in the project area that has already resulted in surface subsidence. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation would lower the groundwater table below the bottom of most caves in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff from precipitation events. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110112, 472 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 10 of 10] T2 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873130087; 14871-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion and development of open pit gold mines and associated support facilities located within the previously permitted boundary for the Genesis-Bluestar Operations area, Eureka County, Nevada are proposed. The Genesis Project is located on public and private land approximately 20 miles north of Carlin, Nevada. Genesis-Bluestar Operations is an ongoing project on the Carlin Trend, a 50-mile-long by 10-mile-wide geologic area that has produced more than 60 million ounces of gold at numerous mines over the last 30 years. The proposed project would expand the existing Genesis open pit, backfill the Bluestar and Beast pits, and partially backfill the Genesis pit as mining progresses. Part of the waste rock would be placed in existing waste rock facilities. The proposal includes the development of a new 25-acre pit, the Bluestar Ridge Pit, dewatering the east wall of the mine at an estimated maximum rate of 250 gallons per minute for 10 years, and processing of 50 million tons of ore. Key issues identified during scoping include social and economic impacts, effects of dewatering on the regional water system, and classification and management of potentially acid-generating rock. The Genesis Project would have a 12-year operational mine life and closure activities could continue for a period of up to 30 years after mining activity is completed. Reclamation would include: regarding waste rock disposal facilities and stockpile areas, drainage control to channel run-off and minimize erosion, replacement of 622,000 cubic yards of salvaged growth media; hauling 3 million cubic yards of Carlin Formation material from the East Lantern Mine for use as growth media, revegetation, and monitoring of reclamation and water control structures. In addition to the proposed plan, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with modifications. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would continue to produce gold and would extend employment for approximately 867 members of Newmonts existing Carlin Trend work force over the life-of-mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The expansion would rework existing mine disturbances and disturb an additional 43 acres for a total of 1,135 acres. Impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat and migration corridors would occur. Mining would continue in open pits with fugitive dust emissions generated from wind and road dust. Gaseous and particulate emissions would be extended for 12 years. The possibility of ephemeral ponding of acidic water in the existing pits would continue and could require remedial treatment through the placement of neutralizing limestone rock. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0072D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110115, 106 pages and maps, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-10/13+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Emissions KW - Erosion Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130087?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 10] T2 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873130078; 14871-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion and development of open pit gold mines and associated support facilities located within the previously permitted boundary for the Genesis-Bluestar Operations area, Eureka County, Nevada are proposed. The Genesis Project is located on public and private land approximately 20 miles north of Carlin, Nevada. Genesis-Bluestar Operations is an ongoing project on the Carlin Trend, a 50-mile-long by 10-mile-wide geologic area that has produced more than 60 million ounces of gold at numerous mines over the last 30 years. The proposed project would expand the existing Genesis open pit, backfill the Bluestar and Beast pits, and partially backfill the Genesis pit as mining progresses. Part of the waste rock would be placed in existing waste rock facilities. The proposal includes the development of a new 25-acre pit, the Bluestar Ridge Pit, dewatering the east wall of the mine at an estimated maximum rate of 250 gallons per minute for 10 years, and processing of 50 million tons of ore. Key issues identified during scoping include social and economic impacts, effects of dewatering on the regional water system, and classification and management of potentially acid-generating rock. The Genesis Project would have a 12-year operational mine life and closure activities could continue for a period of up to 30 years after mining activity is completed. Reclamation would include: regarding waste rock disposal facilities and stockpile areas, drainage control to channel run-off and minimize erosion, replacement of 622,000 cubic yards of salvaged growth media; hauling 3 million cubic yards of Carlin Formation material from the East Lantern Mine for use as growth media, revegetation, and monitoring of reclamation and water control structures. In addition to the proposed plan, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with modifications. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would continue to produce gold and would extend employment for approximately 867 members of Newmonts existing Carlin Trend work force over the life-of-mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The expansion would rework existing mine disturbances and disturb an additional 43 acres for a total of 1,135 acres. Impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat and migration corridors would occur. Mining would continue in open pits with fugitive dust emissions generated from wind and road dust. Gaseous and particulate emissions would be extended for 12 years. The possibility of ephemeral ponding of acidic water in the existing pits would continue and could require remedial treatment through the placement of neutralizing limestone rock. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0072D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110115, 106 pages and maps, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-10/13+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Emissions KW - Erosion Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130078?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 10] T2 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873130069; 14871-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion and development of open pit gold mines and associated support facilities located within the previously permitted boundary for the Genesis-Bluestar Operations area, Eureka County, Nevada are proposed. The Genesis Project is located on public and private land approximately 20 miles north of Carlin, Nevada. Genesis-Bluestar Operations is an ongoing project on the Carlin Trend, a 50-mile-long by 10-mile-wide geologic area that has produced more than 60 million ounces of gold at numerous mines over the last 30 years. The proposed project would expand the existing Genesis open pit, backfill the Bluestar and Beast pits, and partially backfill the Genesis pit as mining progresses. Part of the waste rock would be placed in existing waste rock facilities. The proposal includes the development of a new 25-acre pit, the Bluestar Ridge Pit, dewatering the east wall of the mine at an estimated maximum rate of 250 gallons per minute for 10 years, and processing of 50 million tons of ore. Key issues identified during scoping include social and economic impacts, effects of dewatering on the regional water system, and classification and management of potentially acid-generating rock. The Genesis Project would have a 12-year operational mine life and closure activities could continue for a period of up to 30 years after mining activity is completed. Reclamation would include: regarding waste rock disposal facilities and stockpile areas, drainage control to channel run-off and minimize erosion, replacement of 622,000 cubic yards of salvaged growth media; hauling 3 million cubic yards of Carlin Formation material from the East Lantern Mine for use as growth media, revegetation, and monitoring of reclamation and water control structures. In addition to the proposed plan, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with modifications. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would continue to produce gold and would extend employment for approximately 867 members of Newmonts existing Carlin Trend work force over the life-of-mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The expansion would rework existing mine disturbances and disturb an additional 43 acres for a total of 1,135 acres. Impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat and migration corridors would occur. Mining would continue in open pits with fugitive dust emissions generated from wind and road dust. Gaseous and particulate emissions would be extended for 12 years. The possibility of ephemeral ponding of acidic water in the existing pits would continue and could require remedial treatment through the placement of neutralizing limestone rock. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0072D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110115, 106 pages and maps, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-10/13+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Emissions KW - Erosion Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 10] T2 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873130060; 14871-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion and development of open pit gold mines and associated support facilities located within the previously permitted boundary for the Genesis-Bluestar Operations area, Eureka County, Nevada are proposed. The Genesis Project is located on public and private land approximately 20 miles north of Carlin, Nevada. Genesis-Bluestar Operations is an ongoing project on the Carlin Trend, a 50-mile-long by 10-mile-wide geologic area that has produced more than 60 million ounces of gold at numerous mines over the last 30 years. The proposed project would expand the existing Genesis open pit, backfill the Bluestar and Beast pits, and partially backfill the Genesis pit as mining progresses. Part of the waste rock would be placed in existing waste rock facilities. The proposal includes the development of a new 25-acre pit, the Bluestar Ridge Pit, dewatering the east wall of the mine at an estimated maximum rate of 250 gallons per minute for 10 years, and processing of 50 million tons of ore. Key issues identified during scoping include social and economic impacts, effects of dewatering on the regional water system, and classification and management of potentially acid-generating rock. The Genesis Project would have a 12-year operational mine life and closure activities could continue for a period of up to 30 years after mining activity is completed. Reclamation would include: regarding waste rock disposal facilities and stockpile areas, drainage control to channel run-off and minimize erosion, replacement of 622,000 cubic yards of salvaged growth media; hauling 3 million cubic yards of Carlin Formation material from the East Lantern Mine for use as growth media, revegetation, and monitoring of reclamation and water control structures. In addition to the proposed plan, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with modifications. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would continue to produce gold and would extend employment for approximately 867 members of Newmonts existing Carlin Trend work force over the life-of-mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The expansion would rework existing mine disturbances and disturb an additional 43 acres for a total of 1,135 acres. Impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat and migration corridors would occur. Mining would continue in open pits with fugitive dust emissions generated from wind and road dust. Gaseous and particulate emissions would be extended for 12 years. The possibility of ephemeral ponding of acidic water in the existing pits would continue and could require remedial treatment through the placement of neutralizing limestone rock. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0072D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110115, 106 pages and maps, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-10/13+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Emissions KW - Erosion Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130060?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 10] T2 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873130048; 14871-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion and development of open pit gold mines and associated support facilities located within the previously permitted boundary for the Genesis-Bluestar Operations area, Eureka County, Nevada are proposed. The Genesis Project is located on public and private land approximately 20 miles north of Carlin, Nevada. Genesis-Bluestar Operations is an ongoing project on the Carlin Trend, a 50-mile-long by 10-mile-wide geologic area that has produced more than 60 million ounces of gold at numerous mines over the last 30 years. The proposed project would expand the existing Genesis open pit, backfill the Bluestar and Beast pits, and partially backfill the Genesis pit as mining progresses. Part of the waste rock would be placed in existing waste rock facilities. The proposal includes the development of a new 25-acre pit, the Bluestar Ridge Pit, dewatering the east wall of the mine at an estimated maximum rate of 250 gallons per minute for 10 years, and processing of 50 million tons of ore. Key issues identified during scoping include social and economic impacts, effects of dewatering on the regional water system, and classification and management of potentially acid-generating rock. The Genesis Project would have a 12-year operational mine life and closure activities could continue for a period of up to 30 years after mining activity is completed. Reclamation would include: regarding waste rock disposal facilities and stockpile areas, drainage control to channel run-off and minimize erosion, replacement of 622,000 cubic yards of salvaged growth media; hauling 3 million cubic yards of Carlin Formation material from the East Lantern Mine for use as growth media, revegetation, and monitoring of reclamation and water control structures. In addition to the proposed plan, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with modifications. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would continue to produce gold and would extend employment for approximately 867 members of Newmonts existing Carlin Trend work force over the life-of-mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The expansion would rework existing mine disturbances and disturb an additional 43 acres for a total of 1,135 acres. Impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat and migration corridors would occur. Mining would continue in open pits with fugitive dust emissions generated from wind and road dust. Gaseous and particulate emissions would be extended for 12 years. The possibility of ephemeral ponding of acidic water in the existing pits would continue and could require remedial treatment through the placement of neutralizing limestone rock. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0072D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110115, 106 pages and maps, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-10/13+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Emissions KW - Erosion Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 10] T2 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873130043; 14871-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion and development of open pit gold mines and associated support facilities located within the previously permitted boundary for the Genesis-Bluestar Operations area, Eureka County, Nevada are proposed. The Genesis Project is located on public and private land approximately 20 miles north of Carlin, Nevada. Genesis-Bluestar Operations is an ongoing project on the Carlin Trend, a 50-mile-long by 10-mile-wide geologic area that has produced more than 60 million ounces of gold at numerous mines over the last 30 years. The proposed project would expand the existing Genesis open pit, backfill the Bluestar and Beast pits, and partially backfill the Genesis pit as mining progresses. Part of the waste rock would be placed in existing waste rock facilities. The proposal includes the development of a new 25-acre pit, the Bluestar Ridge Pit, dewatering the east wall of the mine at an estimated maximum rate of 250 gallons per minute for 10 years, and processing of 50 million tons of ore. Key issues identified during scoping include social and economic impacts, effects of dewatering on the regional water system, and classification and management of potentially acid-generating rock. The Genesis Project would have a 12-year operational mine life and closure activities could continue for a period of up to 30 years after mining activity is completed. Reclamation would include: regarding waste rock disposal facilities and stockpile areas, drainage control to channel run-off and minimize erosion, replacement of 622,000 cubic yards of salvaged growth media; hauling 3 million cubic yards of Carlin Formation material from the East Lantern Mine for use as growth media, revegetation, and monitoring of reclamation and water control structures. In addition to the proposed plan, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with modifications. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would continue to produce gold and would extend employment for approximately 867 members of Newmonts existing Carlin Trend work force over the life-of-mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The expansion would rework existing mine disturbances and disturb an additional 43 acres for a total of 1,135 acres. Impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat and migration corridors would occur. Mining would continue in open pits with fugitive dust emissions generated from wind and road dust. Gaseous and particulate emissions would be extended for 12 years. The possibility of ephemeral ponding of acidic water in the existing pits would continue and could require remedial treatment through the placement of neutralizing limestone rock. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0072D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110115, 106 pages and maps, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-10/13+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Emissions KW - Erosion Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 10] T2 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873129901; 14871-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion and development of open pit gold mines and associated support facilities located within the previously permitted boundary for the Genesis-Bluestar Operations area, Eureka County, Nevada are proposed. The Genesis Project is located on public and private land approximately 20 miles north of Carlin, Nevada. Genesis-Bluestar Operations is an ongoing project on the Carlin Trend, a 50-mile-long by 10-mile-wide geologic area that has produced more than 60 million ounces of gold at numerous mines over the last 30 years. The proposed project would expand the existing Genesis open pit, backfill the Bluestar and Beast pits, and partially backfill the Genesis pit as mining progresses. Part of the waste rock would be placed in existing waste rock facilities. The proposal includes the development of a new 25-acre pit, the Bluestar Ridge Pit, dewatering the east wall of the mine at an estimated maximum rate of 250 gallons per minute for 10 years, and processing of 50 million tons of ore. Key issues identified during scoping include social and economic impacts, effects of dewatering on the regional water system, and classification and management of potentially acid-generating rock. The Genesis Project would have a 12-year operational mine life and closure activities could continue for a period of up to 30 years after mining activity is completed. Reclamation would include: regarding waste rock disposal facilities and stockpile areas, drainage control to channel run-off and minimize erosion, replacement of 622,000 cubic yards of salvaged growth media; hauling 3 million cubic yards of Carlin Formation material from the East Lantern Mine for use as growth media, revegetation, and monitoring of reclamation and water control structures. In addition to the proposed plan, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with modifications. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would continue to produce gold and would extend employment for approximately 867 members of Newmonts existing Carlin Trend work force over the life-of-mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The expansion would rework existing mine disturbances and disturb an additional 43 acres for a total of 1,135 acres. Impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat and migration corridors would occur. Mining would continue in open pits with fugitive dust emissions generated from wind and road dust. Gaseous and particulate emissions would be extended for 12 years. The possibility of ephemeral ponding of acidic water in the existing pits would continue and could require remedial treatment through the placement of neutralizing limestone rock. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0072D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110115, 106 pages and maps, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-10/13+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Emissions KW - Erosion Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 10] T2 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873129883; 14871-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion and development of open pit gold mines and associated support facilities located within the previously permitted boundary for the Genesis-Bluestar Operations area, Eureka County, Nevada are proposed. The Genesis Project is located on public and private land approximately 20 miles north of Carlin, Nevada. Genesis-Bluestar Operations is an ongoing project on the Carlin Trend, a 50-mile-long by 10-mile-wide geologic area that has produced more than 60 million ounces of gold at numerous mines over the last 30 years. The proposed project would expand the existing Genesis open pit, backfill the Bluestar and Beast pits, and partially backfill the Genesis pit as mining progresses. Part of the waste rock would be placed in existing waste rock facilities. The proposal includes the development of a new 25-acre pit, the Bluestar Ridge Pit, dewatering the east wall of the mine at an estimated maximum rate of 250 gallons per minute for 10 years, and processing of 50 million tons of ore. Key issues identified during scoping include social and economic impacts, effects of dewatering on the regional water system, and classification and management of potentially acid-generating rock. The Genesis Project would have a 12-year operational mine life and closure activities could continue for a period of up to 30 years after mining activity is completed. Reclamation would include: regarding waste rock disposal facilities and stockpile areas, drainage control to channel run-off and minimize erosion, replacement of 622,000 cubic yards of salvaged growth media; hauling 3 million cubic yards of Carlin Formation material from the East Lantern Mine for use as growth media, revegetation, and monitoring of reclamation and water control structures. In addition to the proposed plan, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with modifications. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would continue to produce gold and would extend employment for approximately 867 members of Newmonts existing Carlin Trend work force over the life-of-mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The expansion would rework existing mine disturbances and disturb an additional 43 acres for a total of 1,135 acres. Impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat and migration corridors would occur. Mining would continue in open pits with fugitive dust emissions generated from wind and road dust. Gaseous and particulate emissions would be extended for 12 years. The possibility of ephemeral ponding of acidic water in the existing pits would continue and could require remedial treatment through the placement of neutralizing limestone rock. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0072D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110115, 106 pages and maps, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-10/13+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Emissions KW - Erosion Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129883?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 10] T2 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873129874; 14871-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion and development of open pit gold mines and associated support facilities located within the previously permitted boundary for the Genesis-Bluestar Operations area, Eureka County, Nevada are proposed. The Genesis Project is located on public and private land approximately 20 miles north of Carlin, Nevada. Genesis-Bluestar Operations is an ongoing project on the Carlin Trend, a 50-mile-long by 10-mile-wide geologic area that has produced more than 60 million ounces of gold at numerous mines over the last 30 years. The proposed project would expand the existing Genesis open pit, backfill the Bluestar and Beast pits, and partially backfill the Genesis pit as mining progresses. Part of the waste rock would be placed in existing waste rock facilities. The proposal includes the development of a new 25-acre pit, the Bluestar Ridge Pit, dewatering the east wall of the mine at an estimated maximum rate of 250 gallons per minute for 10 years, and processing of 50 million tons of ore. Key issues identified during scoping include social and economic impacts, effects of dewatering on the regional water system, and classification and management of potentially acid-generating rock. The Genesis Project would have a 12-year operational mine life and closure activities could continue for a period of up to 30 years after mining activity is completed. Reclamation would include: regarding waste rock disposal facilities and stockpile areas, drainage control to channel run-off and minimize erosion, replacement of 622,000 cubic yards of salvaged growth media; hauling 3 million cubic yards of Carlin Formation material from the East Lantern Mine for use as growth media, revegetation, and monitoring of reclamation and water control structures. In addition to the proposed plan, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with modifications. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would continue to produce gold and would extend employment for approximately 867 members of Newmonts existing Carlin Trend work force over the life-of-mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The expansion would rework existing mine disturbances and disturb an additional 43 acres for a total of 1,135 acres. Impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat and migration corridors would occur. Mining would continue in open pits with fugitive dust emissions generated from wind and road dust. Gaseous and particulate emissions would be extended for 12 years. The possibility of ephemeral ponding of acidic water in the existing pits would continue and could require remedial treatment through the placement of neutralizing limestone rock. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0072D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110115, 106 pages and maps, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-10/13+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Emissions KW - Erosion Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129874?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 10] T2 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873129860; 14871-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion and development of open pit gold mines and associated support facilities located within the previously permitted boundary for the Genesis-Bluestar Operations area, Eureka County, Nevada are proposed. The Genesis Project is located on public and private land approximately 20 miles north of Carlin, Nevada. Genesis-Bluestar Operations is an ongoing project on the Carlin Trend, a 50-mile-long by 10-mile-wide geologic area that has produced more than 60 million ounces of gold at numerous mines over the last 30 years. The proposed project would expand the existing Genesis open pit, backfill the Bluestar and Beast pits, and partially backfill the Genesis pit as mining progresses. Part of the waste rock would be placed in existing waste rock facilities. The proposal includes the development of a new 25-acre pit, the Bluestar Ridge Pit, dewatering the east wall of the mine at an estimated maximum rate of 250 gallons per minute for 10 years, and processing of 50 million tons of ore. Key issues identified during scoping include social and economic impacts, effects of dewatering on the regional water system, and classification and management of potentially acid-generating rock. The Genesis Project would have a 12-year operational mine life and closure activities could continue for a period of up to 30 years after mining activity is completed. Reclamation would include: regarding waste rock disposal facilities and stockpile areas, drainage control to channel run-off and minimize erosion, replacement of 622,000 cubic yards of salvaged growth media; hauling 3 million cubic yards of Carlin Formation material from the East Lantern Mine for use as growth media, revegetation, and monitoring of reclamation and water control structures. In addition to the proposed plan, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with modifications. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would continue to produce gold and would extend employment for approximately 867 members of Newmonts existing Carlin Trend work force over the life-of-mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The expansion would rework existing mine disturbances and disturb an additional 43 acres for a total of 1,135 acres. Impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat and migration corridors would occur. Mining would continue in open pits with fugitive dust emissions generated from wind and road dust. Gaseous and particulate emissions would be extended for 12 years. The possibility of ephemeral ponding of acidic water in the existing pits would continue and could require remedial treatment through the placement of neutralizing limestone rock. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0072D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110115, 106 pages and maps, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-10/13+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Emissions KW - Erosion Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129860?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLE ELUM DAM FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES AND FISH REINTRODUCTION PROJECT, KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CLE ELUM DAM FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES AND FISH REINTRODUCTION PROJECT, KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129830; 14874-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of fish passage facilities at Cle Elum Dam and the reintroduction of fish populations above the dam on the Cle Elum River, Kittitas County, Washington are proposed. Cle Elum Dam did not include fish passage facilities when constructed in 1933 and passage to upstream habitat for fish species was blocked. Cle Elum Reservoir was a natural lake that historically supported populations of three species of salmon (sockeye, coho, and spring Chinook), Middle Columbia River steelhead, Pacific lamprey, bull trout, and other resident fish. The proposed project would include downstream juvenile fish passage and upstream adult fish passage facilities. The reintroduction project could involve the use of both low-scale efforts, such as the transportation and release of adults for natural spawning, and intensive supplementation techniques, such as hatchery production, to restore fish above the dam. Specifically, the project seeks to: restore sockeye salmon populations to self-sustaining levels capable of supporting harvest; increase the life history diversity, geographic distribution, and abundance of coho salmon, spring Chinook salmon, and Pacific lamprey to self-sustaining levels capable of supporting increased harvest; contribute to the recovery of federally-listed upper Middle Columbia River steelhead; and reconnect isolated populations of federally-listed bull trout. A No Action Alternative, two action alternatives for fish passage, and one alternative for fish reintroduction are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the dam would not be modified and the existing interim fish passage facility would be removed. Alternative 2 would include construction of facilities for downstream juvenile fish passage on the right bank and upstream adult fish passage on the left bank. The downstream facility would include a multilevel gated intake structure located in the forebay 500 feet upstream of the spillway inlet channel and a juvenile fish bypass conduit. The upstream facility would include a barrier dam and fish ladder and adult collection facility. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would include construction of similar facilities, but all adult passage facilities would be located on the right bank eliminating the need for a barrier dam. Construction costs for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are estimated in 2008 dollars at $96 million $84 million, respectively. With regard to proposed fish reintroduction above the dam, Alternative 2 is preferred and would involve an active project to accelerate adult and juvenile salmon repopulation in the habitat above the dam. A fish hatchery could be constructed in the future. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of fish passage facilities at Cle Elum Dam would restore ecological connectivity, biodiversity, and natural production of anadromous salmonids in Cle Elum Reservoir. Fish reintroduction would benefit native fish populations in the Cle Elum basin by providing additional food sources and nutrients. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause ground disturbance in the area around and downstream of the dam with some potential of affecting historical sites. Some resident fish species could be negatively affected by interspecific competition, predation, and other factors related to reintroduction; but overall effects on the ecosystem are expected to be positive. LEGAL MANDATES: Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, Reclamation Reform Act of 1902, and Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-434). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0187D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110118, 362 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-03 KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Reservoirs KW - Cle Elum River KW - Washington KW - Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Act of 1994, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129830?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLE+ELUM+DAM+FISH+PASSAGE+FACILITIES+AND+FISH+REINTRODUCTION+PROJECT%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CLE+ELUM+DAM+FISH+PASSAGE+FACILITIES+AND+FISH+REINTRODUCTION+PROJECT%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 11 of 11] T2 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873129641; 14868-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine (formerly Eddy Potash or PCA) located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The project area includes a total of 38,453 acres, of which 31,439 acres is on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres is managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. This draft EIS analyzes three action alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A, which is the proposed action, would use mostly non-potable water from the Rustler Formation, and would require the installation of 82 miles of surface pipelines within almost 38 miles of new rights-of-way, construction and operation of up to seven groundwater pumping wells and 14 monitoring wells, construction of an evaporation pond system and a new processing mill, and pumping of a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater from combined sources. Under Alternative B, additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the saline water with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. Intrepids existing pipelines from the Caprock wells would be improved. Fewer Rustler wells and pipelines would be developed, but all of the other facilities and process plans would be the same as for the proposed action. Alternative C would involve burying all pipelines. The layout of the pipeline system would be the same as that for the proposed action. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: disturb 980 acres; increase the potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River; and result in the loss of 120 animal unit months of livestock grazing. The in-situ process would put 4,354 acres at risk for additional subsidence of about 0.6 foot in addition to the 17,000 acres of mining in the project area that has already resulted in surface subsidence. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation would lower the groundwater table below the bottom of most caves in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff from precipitation events. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110112, 472 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129641?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 10 of 11] T2 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873129619; 14868-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine (formerly Eddy Potash or PCA) located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The project area includes a total of 38,453 acres, of which 31,439 acres is on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres is managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. This draft EIS analyzes three action alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A, which is the proposed action, would use mostly non-potable water from the Rustler Formation, and would require the installation of 82 miles of surface pipelines within almost 38 miles of new rights-of-way, construction and operation of up to seven groundwater pumping wells and 14 monitoring wells, construction of an evaporation pond system and a new processing mill, and pumping of a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater from combined sources. Under Alternative B, additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the saline water with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. Intrepids existing pipelines from the Caprock wells would be improved. Fewer Rustler wells and pipelines would be developed, but all of the other facilities and process plans would be the same as for the proposed action. Alternative C would involve burying all pipelines. The layout of the pipeline system would be the same as that for the proposed action. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: disturb 980 acres; increase the potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River; and result in the loss of 120 animal unit months of livestock grazing. The in-situ process would put 4,354 acres at risk for additional subsidence of about 0.6 foot in addition to the 17,000 acres of mining in the project area that has already resulted in surface subsidence. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation would lower the groundwater table below the bottom of most caves in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff from precipitation events. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110112, 472 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129619?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 9 of 11] T2 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873129601; 14868-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine (formerly Eddy Potash or PCA) located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The project area includes a total of 38,453 acres, of which 31,439 acres is on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres is managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. This draft EIS analyzes three action alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A, which is the proposed action, would use mostly non-potable water from the Rustler Formation, and would require the installation of 82 miles of surface pipelines within almost 38 miles of new rights-of-way, construction and operation of up to seven groundwater pumping wells and 14 monitoring wells, construction of an evaporation pond system and a new processing mill, and pumping of a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater from combined sources. Under Alternative B, additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the saline water with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. Intrepids existing pipelines from the Caprock wells would be improved. Fewer Rustler wells and pipelines would be developed, but all of the other facilities and process plans would be the same as for the proposed action. Alternative C would involve burying all pipelines. The layout of the pipeline system would be the same as that for the proposed action. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: disturb 980 acres; increase the potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River; and result in the loss of 120 animal unit months of livestock grazing. The in-situ process would put 4,354 acres at risk for additional subsidence of about 0.6 foot in addition to the 17,000 acres of mining in the project area that has already resulted in surface subsidence. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation would lower the groundwater table below the bottom of most caves in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff from precipitation events. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110112, 472 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129601?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129551; 14873-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 550-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic energy-generating project known as the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (DSSF) in Riverside County, California are proposed. Desert Sunlight Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar Development, Inc., has applied for a right-of-way (ROW) grant from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the project. The DSSF, most of the corridor for the project's proposed 220-kilovolt (kV) interconnection transmission line (Gen-Tie Line), and one of two potential sites being considered for a new 500/220-kV substation would be located on lands administered by the BLM. The Red Bluff Substation would be owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and would interconnect with the existing SCE Devers-Palo Verde 1 transmission line. The applicant has also applied to the Department of Energy for a loan guarantee and the ROW authorization would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project area is located six miles north of Interstate 10 and consists of largely vacant, undeveloped, and relatively flat land in the Chuckwalla Valley of the Sonoran Desert. Three full action alternatives and three No Action/No Project alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), which is the preferred alternative, the three main project components would require a total of 4,176 acres and the Red Bluff Substation would be located on 76 acres of land four miles southeast of State Route 177. Other substation-related project elements would require an additional 96 acres. Alternative 2 would require 4,110 acres and would use a western location on a 160-acre parcel of private land for the proposed substation. The Reduced Solar Farm Footprint Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve a reduced power facility of 413 MW requiring 3,303 acres. The Red Bluff Substation would be situated as under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, all components of the project would be denied and no CDCA Plan amendment would be approved. With Alternative 5, the project would not be approved and the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the project area as unsuitable for future large-scale solar energy development. Under Alternative 6, the project would not be approved, but the CDCA plan would be amended to identify the project area as suitable for future solar energy development. Project construction is expected to take 26 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide safe and reliable electrical power and help meet policy goals by approving and financing production of renewable energy power on public lands. Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to the desert tortoise relative to the other action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would result in permanent removal of 4,066 acres of creosote bush scrub, 96 acres of desert dry wash woodland, and six special status plant species, and permanent disturbance of 190 acres of the Chuckwalla designated wildlife management area and 187 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat. Construction activities and associated vehicle traffic would generate emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants in excess of regional significance thresholds. Changes in the site's geomorphic conditions and hydrology could adversely affect hydrology and water quality of desert dry wash woodland located downstream. At least 57 cultural sites and one historic district would be impacted. Changes to the characteristic landscape would alter visual resources, LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0284D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110117, Volume I--474 pages, Volume II--680 pages, Volume III--485 pages, Volume IV--474 pages, Volume V--892 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-39 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Historic Districts KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Noise Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129507; 14873-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 550-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic energy-generating project known as the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (DSSF) in Riverside County, California are proposed. Desert Sunlight Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar Development, Inc., has applied for a right-of-way (ROW) grant from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the project. The DSSF, most of the corridor for the project's proposed 220-kilovolt (kV) interconnection transmission line (Gen-Tie Line), and one of two potential sites being considered for a new 500/220-kV substation would be located on lands administered by the BLM. The Red Bluff Substation would be owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and would interconnect with the existing SCE Devers-Palo Verde 1 transmission line. The applicant has also applied to the Department of Energy for a loan guarantee and the ROW authorization would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project area is located six miles north of Interstate 10 and consists of largely vacant, undeveloped, and relatively flat land in the Chuckwalla Valley of the Sonoran Desert. Three full action alternatives and three No Action/No Project alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), which is the preferred alternative, the three main project components would require a total of 4,176 acres and the Red Bluff Substation would be located on 76 acres of land four miles southeast of State Route 177. Other substation-related project elements would require an additional 96 acres. Alternative 2 would require 4,110 acres and would use a western location on a 160-acre parcel of private land for the proposed substation. The Reduced Solar Farm Footprint Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve a reduced power facility of 413 MW requiring 3,303 acres. The Red Bluff Substation would be situated as under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, all components of the project would be denied and no CDCA Plan amendment would be approved. With Alternative 5, the project would not be approved and the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the project area as unsuitable for future large-scale solar energy development. Under Alternative 6, the project would not be approved, but the CDCA plan would be amended to identify the project area as suitable for future solar energy development. Project construction is expected to take 26 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide safe and reliable electrical power and help meet policy goals by approving and financing production of renewable energy power on public lands. Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to the desert tortoise relative to the other action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would result in permanent removal of 4,066 acres of creosote bush scrub, 96 acres of desert dry wash woodland, and six special status plant species, and permanent disturbance of 190 acres of the Chuckwalla designated wildlife management area and 187 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat. Construction activities and associated vehicle traffic would generate emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants in excess of regional significance thresholds. Changes in the site's geomorphic conditions and hydrology could adversely affect hydrology and water quality of desert dry wash woodland located downstream. At least 57 cultural sites and one historic district would be impacted. Changes to the characteristic landscape would alter visual resources, LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0284D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110117, Volume I--474 pages, Volume II--680 pages, Volume III--485 pages, Volume IV--474 pages, Volume V--892 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-39 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Historic Districts KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Noise Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 8 of 11] T2 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873128232; 14868-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine (formerly Eddy Potash or PCA) located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The project area includes a total of 38,453 acres, of which 31,439 acres is on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres is managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. This draft EIS analyzes three action alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A, which is the proposed action, would use mostly non-potable water from the Rustler Formation, and would require the installation of 82 miles of surface pipelines within almost 38 miles of new rights-of-way, construction and operation of up to seven groundwater pumping wells and 14 monitoring wells, construction of an evaporation pond system and a new processing mill, and pumping of a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater from combined sources. Under Alternative B, additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the saline water with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. Intrepids existing pipelines from the Caprock wells would be improved. Fewer Rustler wells and pipelines would be developed, but all of the other facilities and process plans would be the same as for the proposed action. Alternative C would involve burying all pipelines. The layout of the pipeline system would be the same as that for the proposed action. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: disturb 980 acres; increase the potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River; and result in the loss of 120 animal unit months of livestock grazing. The in-situ process would put 4,354 acres at risk for additional subsidence of about 0.6 foot in addition to the 17,000 acres of mining in the project area that has already resulted in surface subsidence. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation would lower the groundwater table below the bottom of most caves in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff from precipitation events. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110112, 472 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128232?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 7 of 11] T2 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873128225; 14868-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine (formerly Eddy Potash or PCA) located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The project area includes a total of 38,453 acres, of which 31,439 acres is on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres is managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. This draft EIS analyzes three action alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A, which is the proposed action, would use mostly non-potable water from the Rustler Formation, and would require the installation of 82 miles of surface pipelines within almost 38 miles of new rights-of-way, construction and operation of up to seven groundwater pumping wells and 14 monitoring wells, construction of an evaporation pond system and a new processing mill, and pumping of a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater from combined sources. Under Alternative B, additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the saline water with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. Intrepids existing pipelines from the Caprock wells would be improved. Fewer Rustler wells and pipelines would be developed, but all of the other facilities and process plans would be the same as for the proposed action. Alternative C would involve burying all pipelines. The layout of the pipeline system would be the same as that for the proposed action. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: disturb 980 acres; increase the potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River; and result in the loss of 120 animal unit months of livestock grazing. The in-situ process would put 4,354 acres at risk for additional subsidence of about 0.6 foot in addition to the 17,000 acres of mining in the project area that has already resulted in surface subsidence. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation would lower the groundwater table below the bottom of most caves in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff from precipitation events. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110112, 472 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 6 of 11] T2 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873128221; 14868-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine (formerly Eddy Potash or PCA) located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The project area includes a total of 38,453 acres, of which 31,439 acres is on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres is managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. This draft EIS analyzes three action alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A, which is the proposed action, would use mostly non-potable water from the Rustler Formation, and would require the installation of 82 miles of surface pipelines within almost 38 miles of new rights-of-way, construction and operation of up to seven groundwater pumping wells and 14 monitoring wells, construction of an evaporation pond system and a new processing mill, and pumping of a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater from combined sources. Under Alternative B, additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the saline water with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. Intrepids existing pipelines from the Caprock wells would be improved. Fewer Rustler wells and pipelines would be developed, but all of the other facilities and process plans would be the same as for the proposed action. Alternative C would involve burying all pipelines. The layout of the pipeline system would be the same as that for the proposed action. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: disturb 980 acres; increase the potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River; and result in the loss of 120 animal unit months of livestock grazing. The in-situ process would put 4,354 acres at risk for additional subsidence of about 0.6 foot in addition to the 17,000 acres of mining in the project area that has already resulted in surface subsidence. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation would lower the groundwater table below the bottom of most caves in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff from precipitation events. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110112, 472 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128221?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 5 of 11] T2 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873128218; 14868-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine (formerly Eddy Potash or PCA) located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The project area includes a total of 38,453 acres, of which 31,439 acres is on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres is managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. This draft EIS analyzes three action alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A, which is the proposed action, would use mostly non-potable water from the Rustler Formation, and would require the installation of 82 miles of surface pipelines within almost 38 miles of new rights-of-way, construction and operation of up to seven groundwater pumping wells and 14 monitoring wells, construction of an evaporation pond system and a new processing mill, and pumping of a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater from combined sources. Under Alternative B, additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the saline water with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. Intrepids existing pipelines from the Caprock wells would be improved. Fewer Rustler wells and pipelines would be developed, but all of the other facilities and process plans would be the same as for the proposed action. Alternative C would involve burying all pipelines. The layout of the pipeline system would be the same as that for the proposed action. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: disturb 980 acres; increase the potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River; and result in the loss of 120 animal unit months of livestock grazing. The in-situ process would put 4,354 acres at risk for additional subsidence of about 0.6 foot in addition to the 17,000 acres of mining in the project area that has already resulted in surface subsidence. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation would lower the groundwater table below the bottom of most caves in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff from precipitation events. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110112, 472 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 4 of 11] T2 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873128216; 14868-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine (formerly Eddy Potash or PCA) located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The project area includes a total of 38,453 acres, of which 31,439 acres is on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres is managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. This draft EIS analyzes three action alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A, which is the proposed action, would use mostly non-potable water from the Rustler Formation, and would require the installation of 82 miles of surface pipelines within almost 38 miles of new rights-of-way, construction and operation of up to seven groundwater pumping wells and 14 monitoring wells, construction of an evaporation pond system and a new processing mill, and pumping of a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater from combined sources. Under Alternative B, additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the saline water with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. Intrepids existing pipelines from the Caprock wells would be improved. Fewer Rustler wells and pipelines would be developed, but all of the other facilities and process plans would be the same as for the proposed action. Alternative C would involve burying all pipelines. The layout of the pipeline system would be the same as that for the proposed action. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: disturb 980 acres; increase the potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River; and result in the loss of 120 animal unit months of livestock grazing. The in-situ process would put 4,354 acres at risk for additional subsidence of about 0.6 foot in addition to the 17,000 acres of mining in the project area that has already resulted in surface subsidence. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation would lower the groundwater table below the bottom of most caves in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff from precipitation events. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110112, 472 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 3 of 11] T2 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873128212; 14868-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine (formerly Eddy Potash or PCA) located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The project area includes a total of 38,453 acres, of which 31,439 acres is on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres is managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. This draft EIS analyzes three action alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A, which is the proposed action, would use mostly non-potable water from the Rustler Formation, and would require the installation of 82 miles of surface pipelines within almost 38 miles of new rights-of-way, construction and operation of up to seven groundwater pumping wells and 14 monitoring wells, construction of an evaporation pond system and a new processing mill, and pumping of a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater from combined sources. Under Alternative B, additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the saline water with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. Intrepids existing pipelines from the Caprock wells would be improved. Fewer Rustler wells and pipelines would be developed, but all of the other facilities and process plans would be the same as for the proposed action. Alternative C would involve burying all pipelines. The layout of the pipeline system would be the same as that for the proposed action. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: disturb 980 acres; increase the potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River; and result in the loss of 120 animal unit months of livestock grazing. The in-situ process would put 4,354 acres at risk for additional subsidence of about 0.6 foot in addition to the 17,000 acres of mining in the project area that has already resulted in surface subsidence. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation would lower the groundwater table below the bottom of most caves in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff from precipitation events. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110112, 472 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128212?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 2 of 11] T2 - HB IN-SITU-SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873128208; 14868-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine (formerly Eddy Potash or PCA) located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The project area includes a total of 38,453 acres, of which 31,439 acres is on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres is managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. This draft EIS analyzes three action alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A, which is the proposed action, would use mostly non-potable water from the Rustler Formation, and would require the installation of 82 miles of surface pipelines within almost 38 miles of new rights-of-way, construction and operation of up to seven groundwater pumping wells and 14 monitoring wells, construction of an evaporation pond system and a new processing mill, and pumping of a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater from combined sources. Under Alternative B, additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the saline water with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. Intrepids existing pipelines from the Caprock wells would be improved. Fewer Rustler wells and pipelines would be developed, but all of the other facilities and process plans would be the same as for the proposed action. Alternative C would involve burying all pipelines. The layout of the pipeline system would be the same as that for the proposed action. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: disturb 980 acres; increase the potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River; and result in the loss of 120 animal unit months of livestock grazing. The in-situ process would put 4,354 acres at risk for additional subsidence of about 0.6 foot in addition to the 17,000 acres of mining in the project area that has already resulted in surface subsidence. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation would lower the groundwater table below the bottom of most caves in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff from precipitation events. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110112, 472 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128208?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU-SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127135; 14873-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 550-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic energy-generating project known as the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (DSSF) in Riverside County, California are proposed. Desert Sunlight Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar Development, Inc., has applied for a right-of-way (ROW) grant from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the project. The DSSF, most of the corridor for the project's proposed 220-kilovolt (kV) interconnection transmission line (Gen-Tie Line), and one of two potential sites being considered for a new 500/220-kV substation would be located on lands administered by the BLM. The Red Bluff Substation would be owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and would interconnect with the existing SCE Devers-Palo Verde 1 transmission line. The applicant has also applied to the Department of Energy for a loan guarantee and the ROW authorization would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project area is located six miles north of Interstate 10 and consists of largely vacant, undeveloped, and relatively flat land in the Chuckwalla Valley of the Sonoran Desert. Three full action alternatives and three No Action/No Project alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), which is the preferred alternative, the three main project components would require a total of 4,176 acres and the Red Bluff Substation would be located on 76 acres of land four miles southeast of State Route 177. Other substation-related project elements would require an additional 96 acres. Alternative 2 would require 4,110 acres and would use a western location on a 160-acre parcel of private land for the proposed substation. The Reduced Solar Farm Footprint Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve a reduced power facility of 413 MW requiring 3,303 acres. The Red Bluff Substation would be situated as under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, all components of the project would be denied and no CDCA Plan amendment would be approved. With Alternative 5, the project would not be approved and the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the project area as unsuitable for future large-scale solar energy development. Under Alternative 6, the project would not be approved, but the CDCA plan would be amended to identify the project area as suitable for future solar energy development. Project construction is expected to take 26 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide safe and reliable electrical power and help meet policy goals by approving and financing production of renewable energy power on public lands. Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to the desert tortoise relative to the other action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would result in permanent removal of 4,066 acres of creosote bush scrub, 96 acres of desert dry wash woodland, and six special status plant species, and permanent disturbance of 190 acres of the Chuckwalla designated wildlife management area and 187 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat. Construction activities and associated vehicle traffic would generate emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants in excess of regional significance thresholds. Changes in the site's geomorphic conditions and hydrology could adversely affect hydrology and water quality of desert dry wash woodland located downstream. At least 57 cultural sites and one historic district would be impacted. Changes to the characteristic landscape would alter visual resources, LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0284D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110117, Volume I--474 pages, Volume II--680 pages, Volume III--485 pages, Volume IV--474 pages, Volume V--892 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-39 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Historic Districts KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Noise Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127125; 14873-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 550-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic energy-generating project known as the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (DSSF) in Riverside County, California are proposed. Desert Sunlight Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar Development, Inc., has applied for a right-of-way (ROW) grant from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the project. The DSSF, most of the corridor for the project's proposed 220-kilovolt (kV) interconnection transmission line (Gen-Tie Line), and one of two potential sites being considered for a new 500/220-kV substation would be located on lands administered by the BLM. The Red Bluff Substation would be owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and would interconnect with the existing SCE Devers-Palo Verde 1 transmission line. The applicant has also applied to the Department of Energy for a loan guarantee and the ROW authorization would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project area is located six miles north of Interstate 10 and consists of largely vacant, undeveloped, and relatively flat land in the Chuckwalla Valley of the Sonoran Desert. Three full action alternatives and three No Action/No Project alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), which is the preferred alternative, the three main project components would require a total of 4,176 acres and the Red Bluff Substation would be located on 76 acres of land four miles southeast of State Route 177. Other substation-related project elements would require an additional 96 acres. Alternative 2 would require 4,110 acres and would use a western location on a 160-acre parcel of private land for the proposed substation. The Reduced Solar Farm Footprint Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve a reduced power facility of 413 MW requiring 3,303 acres. The Red Bluff Substation would be situated as under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, all components of the project would be denied and no CDCA Plan amendment would be approved. With Alternative 5, the project would not be approved and the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the project area as unsuitable for future large-scale solar energy development. Under Alternative 6, the project would not be approved, but the CDCA plan would be amended to identify the project area as suitable for future solar energy development. Project construction is expected to take 26 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide safe and reliable electrical power and help meet policy goals by approving and financing production of renewable energy power on public lands. Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to the desert tortoise relative to the other action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would result in permanent removal of 4,066 acres of creosote bush scrub, 96 acres of desert dry wash woodland, and six special status plant species, and permanent disturbance of 190 acres of the Chuckwalla designated wildlife management area and 187 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat. Construction activities and associated vehicle traffic would generate emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants in excess of regional significance thresholds. Changes in the site's geomorphic conditions and hydrology could adversely affect hydrology and water quality of desert dry wash woodland located downstream. At least 57 cultural sites and one historic district would be impacted. Changes to the characteristic landscape would alter visual resources, LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0284D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110117, Volume I--474 pages, Volume II--680 pages, Volume III--485 pages, Volume IV--474 pages, Volume V--892 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-39 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Historic Districts KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Noise Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLE ELUM DAM FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES AND FISH REINTRODUCTION PROJECT, KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 867717599; 14874 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of fish passage facilities at Cle Elum Dam and the reintroduction of fish populations above the dam on the Cle Elum River, Kittitas County, Washington are proposed. Cle Elum Dam did not include fish passage facilities when constructed in 1933 and passage to upstream habitat for fish species was blocked. Cle Elum Reservoir was a natural lake that historically supported populations of three species of salmon (sockeye, coho, and spring Chinook), Middle Columbia River steelhead, Pacific lamprey, bull trout, and other resident fish. The proposed project would include downstream juvenile fish passage and upstream adult fish passage facilities. The reintroduction project could involve the use of both low-scale efforts, such as the transportation and release of adults for natural spawning, and intensive supplementation techniques, such as hatchery production, to restore fish above the dam. Specifically, the project seeks to: restore sockeye salmon populations to self-sustaining levels capable of supporting harvest; increase the life history diversity, geographic distribution, and abundance of coho salmon, spring Chinook salmon, and Pacific lamprey to self-sustaining levels capable of supporting increased harvest; contribute to the recovery of federally-listed upper Middle Columbia River steelhead; and reconnect isolated populations of federally-listed bull trout. A No Action Alternative, two action alternatives for fish passage, and one alternative for fish reintroduction are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the dam would not be modified and the existing interim fish passage facility would be removed. Alternative 2 would include construction of facilities for downstream juvenile fish passage on the right bank and upstream adult fish passage on the left bank. The downstream facility would include a multilevel gated intake structure located in the forebay 500 feet upstream of the spillway inlet channel and a juvenile fish bypass conduit. The upstream facility would include a barrier dam and fish ladder and adult collection facility. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would include construction of similar facilities, but all adult passage facilities would be located on the right bank eliminating the need for a barrier dam. Construction costs for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are estimated in 2008 dollars at $96 million $84 million, respectively. With regard to proposed fish reintroduction above the dam, Alternative 2 is preferred and would involve an active project to accelerate adult and juvenile salmon repopulation in the habitat above the dam. A fish hatchery could be constructed in the future. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of fish passage facilities at Cle Elum Dam would restore ecological connectivity, biodiversity, and natural production of anadromous salmonids in Cle Elum Reservoir. Fish reintroduction would benefit native fish populations in the Cle Elum basin by providing additional food sources and nutrients. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause ground disturbance in the area around and downstream of the dam with some potential of affecting historical sites. Some resident fish species could be negatively affected by interspecific competition, predation, and other factors related to reintroduction; but overall effects on the ecosystem are expected to be positive. LEGAL MANDATES: Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, Reclamation Reform Act of 1902, and Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-434). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0187D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110118, 362 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-03 KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Reservoirs KW - Cle Elum River KW - Washington KW - Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Act of 1994, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/867717599?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLE+ELUM+DAM+FISH+PASSAGE+FACILITIES+AND+FISH+REINTRODUCTION+PROJECT%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CLE+ELUM+DAM+FISH+PASSAGE+FACILITIES+AND+FISH+REINTRODUCTION+PROJECT%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16386764; 14871 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion and development of open pit gold mines and associated support facilities located within the previously permitted boundary for the Genesis-Bluestar Operations area, Eureka County, Nevada are proposed. The Genesis Project is located on public and private land approximately 20 miles north of Carlin, Nevada. Genesis-Bluestar Operations is an ongoing project on the Carlin Trend, a 50-mile-long by 10-mile-wide geologic area that has produced more than 60 million ounces of gold at numerous mines over the last 30 years. The proposed project would expand the existing Genesis open pit, backfill the Bluestar and Beast pits, and partially backfill the Genesis pit as mining progresses. Part of the waste rock would be placed in existing waste rock facilities. The proposal includes the development of a new 25-acre pit, the Bluestar Ridge Pit, dewatering the east wall of the mine at an estimated maximum rate of 250 gallons per minute for 10 years, and processing of 50 million tons of ore. Key issues identified during scoping include social and economic impacts, effects of dewatering on the regional water system, and classification and management of potentially acid-generating rock. The Genesis Project would have a 12-year operational mine life and closure activities could continue for a period of up to 30 years after mining activity is completed. Reclamation would include: regarding waste rock disposal facilities and stockpile areas, drainage control to channel run-off and minimize erosion, replacement of 622,000 cubic yards of salvaged growth media; hauling 3 million cubic yards of Carlin Formation material from the East Lantern Mine for use as growth media, revegetation, and monitoring of reclamation and water control structures. In addition to the proposed plan, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with modifications. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would continue to produce gold and would extend employment for approximately 867 members of Newmonts existing Carlin Trend work force over the life-of-mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The expansion would rework existing mine disturbances and disturb an additional 43 acres for a total of 1,135 acres. Impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat and migration corridors would occur. Mining would continue in open pits with fugitive dust emissions generated from wind and road dust. Gaseous and particulate emissions would be extended for 12 years. The possibility of ephemeral ponding of acidic water in the existing pits would continue and could require remedial treatment through the placement of neutralizing limestone rock. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0072D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110115, 106 pages and maps, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-10/13+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Emissions KW - Erosion Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16386764?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16374912; 14873 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 550-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic energy-generating project known as the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (DSSF) in Riverside County, California are proposed. Desert Sunlight Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar Development, Inc., has applied for a right-of-way (ROW) grant from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the project. The DSSF, most of the corridor for the project's proposed 220-kilovolt (kV) interconnection transmission line (Gen-Tie Line), and one of two potential sites being considered for a new 500/220-kV substation would be located on lands administered by the BLM. The Red Bluff Substation would be owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and would interconnect with the existing SCE Devers-Palo Verde 1 transmission line. The applicant has also applied to the Department of Energy for a loan guarantee and the ROW authorization would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project area is located six miles north of Interstate 10 and consists of largely vacant, undeveloped, and relatively flat land in the Chuckwalla Valley of the Sonoran Desert. Three full action alternatives and three No Action/No Project alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), which is the preferred alternative, the three main project components would require a total of 4,176 acres and the Red Bluff Substation would be located on 76 acres of land four miles southeast of State Route 177. Other substation-related project elements would require an additional 96 acres. Alternative 2 would require 4,110 acres and would use a western location on a 160-acre parcel of private land for the proposed substation. The Reduced Solar Farm Footprint Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve a reduced power facility of 413 MW requiring 3,303 acres. The Red Bluff Substation would be situated as under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, all components of the project would be denied and no CDCA Plan amendment would be approved. With Alternative 5, the project would not be approved and the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the project area as unsuitable for future large-scale solar energy development. Under Alternative 6, the project would not be approved, but the CDCA plan would be amended to identify the project area as suitable for future solar energy development. Project construction is expected to take 26 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide safe and reliable electrical power and help meet policy goals by approving and financing production of renewable energy power on public lands. Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to the desert tortoise relative to the other action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would result in permanent removal of 4,066 acres of creosote bush scrub, 96 acres of desert dry wash woodland, and six special status plant species, and permanent disturbance of 190 acres of the Chuckwalla designated wildlife management area and 187 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat. Construction activities and associated vehicle traffic would generate emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants in excess of regional significance thresholds. Changes in the site's geomorphic conditions and hydrology could adversely affect hydrology and water quality of desert dry wash woodland located downstream. At least 57 cultural sites and one historic district would be impacted. Changes to the characteristic landscape would alter visual resources, LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0284D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110117, Volume I--474 pages, Volume II--680 pages, Volume III--485 pages, Volume IV--474 pages, Volume V--892 pages, April 15, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-39 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Historic Districts KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Noise Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - GEN T1 - CBP Office of International Affairs (INA), Control de Confianza Executive Pre-assessment Trip Report, Mexico City, Mexico, April 11-14, 2011 AN - 1679099276; MD01832 AB - Reports discussions in Mexico of Control de Confianza program to provide training in performance of background checks on government personnel and other integrity measures. AU - United States. Department of Homeland Security. Customs and Border Protection. Office of International Affairs AD - United States. Department of Homeland Security. Customs and Border Protection. Office of International Affairs PY - 2011 SP - 6 KW - Control de Confianza Program (Mexico) KW - Employee screening KW - Internal oversight KW - Mérida Initiative KW - Police training KW - State and official visits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1679099276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Adnsa_md&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=CBP+Office+of+International+Affairs+%28INA%29%2C+Control+de+Confianza+Executive+Pre-assessment+Trip+Report%2C+Mexico+City%2C+Mexico%2C+April+11-14%2C+2011&rft.au=United+States.+Department+of+Homeland+Security.+Customs+and+Border+Protection.+Office+of+International+Affairs&rft.aulast=United+States.+Department+of+Homeland+Security.+Customs+and+Border+Protection.+Office+of+International+Affairs&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - Digital National Security Archive N1 - Name - Mexico. Attorney General's Office; Mexico. Secretariat of Public Security; Mexico. Secretariat of the Interior. Center for Research and National Security N1 - Analyte descriptor - NSA document type: Report N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 29 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868224454; 14856-0_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224454?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 28 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868224453; 14856-0_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224453?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 22 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868224452; 14856-0_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 21 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868224451; 14856-0_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 20 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868224450; 14856-0_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 19 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868224449; 14856-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224449?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 18 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868224448; 14856-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224448?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 14 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868224447; 14856-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224447?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 11 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868224446; 14856-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224446?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 10 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868224444; 14856-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224444?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868224442; 14856-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224442?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868224441; 14856-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224441?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868224439; 14856-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CELATOM MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, HARNEY AND MALHEUR COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CELATOM MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, HARNEY AND MALHEUR COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 868224421; 14859-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of existing mining and exploratory drilling operations for mining diatomaceous earth at the Celatom Mine in Harney and Malheur Counties, Oregon is proposed. Currently, EP Minerals operates three open-pit mines at the complex: Kelley Field on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Section 36 on State of Oregon land; and Beede Desert on private land. In addition, EP Minerals has support facilities including generators, water for dust abatement, fuel storage, and a camp for employees. The current mine plan of operations (MPO), approved in 1985, totals approximately 1,634 acres. EP Minerals hauls stockpiled ore on a year-round basis approximately 60 miles to the mill/plant located on private land seven miles west of Vale, Oregon or to the Vines Hill Stockpile Area (VHSA) located on federal land administered by the BLM 14 miles west of Vale. This draft EIS evaluates the proposed expansion and a No Action Alternative. Proposed actions include: 1) expanded mining operations at the Kelly Field mine operations area, Section 36 mine operations area, and Beede Desert mine operations area; 2) new mining operations at the Hidden Valley, North Kelly Field, Section 25, and Eagle mine operation areas; and 3) exploratory drilling, development drilling, sampling, trenching, and bulk sampling within the project boundary. The total proposed MPO area is 12,640 acres: 8,080 acres of BLM land, 1,680 acres of State of Oregon land, and 1,600 acres of split estate land. EP Minerals also proposes constructing two new roads outside of the mine operations areas on federal land: 1) the connector road between Hidden Valley and Section 36; and 2) the access road from Hidden Valley north to Eagle. Activities under the proposed action, including final reclamation, would be conducted over the course of approximately 50 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the MPO would allow for exploration and location of minerals within areas open to mining and having moderate to high mineral potential. End product would be made available for commercial uses including filtration, abrasives, and absorbent materials. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine expansion would result in incremental disturbance of up to 1,394.5 acres of vegetation, removal of soils, impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat, and diminished wilderness characteristics on 4,338 acres in the Rocky Basin Wilderness Inventory Maintenance unit. Mining activities would generate fugitive dust and emit air pollutants. Temporary disturbance in five grazing allotments would represent a loss of 185 animal unit months (AUMs) or 3.6 percent of the total AUMs that are currently managed. A total of 40 AUMs would be permanently lost. Exploration activities would have a temporary impact of 40 AUMs. The proposed action would result in a net loss of potential habitat, but would not contribute to a loss of viability for migratory bird species. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110103, 292 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CELATOM+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+AND+MALHEUR+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CELATOM+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+AND+MALHEUR+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PUEBLO OF JEMEZ 70.277 ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - PUEBLO OF JEMEZ 70.277 ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 868224393; 14862-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of 70.277 acres of a 102.13-acre tract into federal trust for the Pueblo of Jemez to construct and operate a tribal casino and hotel in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, is proposed. The 70.277-acre parcel is currently held in fee simple, but an application to place the land in trust for gaming purposes is pending with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Pueblo of Jemez is located 50 miles northwest of Albuquerque in a remote rural area and the proposed project is an economic development initiative. The tribe has a long history of uncertain financial stability and a growing and young membership who have significant unmet housing, economic, and social needs. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are addressed in this draft EIS. Two alternatives, Alternative A and Alternative B, would utilize the same site located in the southwest corner of Interstate 10 and State Road 404, adjacent to the municipality of Anthony. Under Alternative A, a temporary casino consisting of an engineered modular clear-span membrane structure would be erected and operated during a period of approximately two years while planning and construction of a permanent facility would be carried out. Asphalt parking with a minimum of 500 spaces would be provided. The permanent casino would comprise 103,500 total square feet and would include 1,500 gaming machines and 35 table games, two restaurants, and other facilities. Under Alternative B, only the permanent casino would be constructed. The Pueblo of Jemez, through its tribal gaming enterprise, would operate and manage the casino. The remaining 31.855-acre parcel of fee land would be used for a three-story hotel and associated parking to be operated by the developer, Circle P Investments of New Mexico, LLC. Approximately 45 acres of conservation area would preserve natural features of the project site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed casino would provide a stable and sustainable source of revenue and employment at a level that would support a stronger, more self-sufficient tribal government. Revenues would help address issues such as: insufficient and substandard housing; child care, elder care, and emergency medical care; water and wastewater facilities and other infrastructure; persistent high unemployment and lack of resources for scholarships and job training; and continued improvement of basic health care and law enforcement. Implementation would have positive effects to minority and low-income populations in Anthony and Dona Ana County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the permanent loss of 50 to 60 acres of a mix of Chihuahuan Desert scrub and plains-mesa sand scrub habitat. Sand prickly pear cactus present on a small fraction of the project area would be transplanted. Site grading and excavation would create temporary soil instability with potential for wind erosion and increase potential for sediment discharge to surface waters. Increases in storm water runoff would be significant, but volume would be minimized by the construction of detention ponds. One prehistoric site would be directly impacted. Traffic along State Road 404 would more than double from current conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 460 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110106, Draft EIS--288 pages, Appendices: Volume I--304 pages, Volume II--380 pages, Volume III--693 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Erosion KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224393?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PUEBLO+OF+JEMEZ+70.277+ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+DONA+ANA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=PUEBLO+OF+JEMEZ+70.277+ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+DONA+ANA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PUEBLO OF JEMEZ 70.277 ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - PUEBLO OF JEMEZ 70.277 ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 868224391; 14862-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of 70.277 acres of a 102.13-acre tract into federal trust for the Pueblo of Jemez to construct and operate a tribal casino and hotel in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, is proposed. The 70.277-acre parcel is currently held in fee simple, but an application to place the land in trust for gaming purposes is pending with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Pueblo of Jemez is located 50 miles northwest of Albuquerque in a remote rural area and the proposed project is an economic development initiative. The tribe has a long history of uncertain financial stability and a growing and young membership who have significant unmet housing, economic, and social needs. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are addressed in this draft EIS. Two alternatives, Alternative A and Alternative B, would utilize the same site located in the southwest corner of Interstate 10 and State Road 404, adjacent to the municipality of Anthony. Under Alternative A, a temporary casino consisting of an engineered modular clear-span membrane structure would be erected and operated during a period of approximately two years while planning and construction of a permanent facility would be carried out. Asphalt parking with a minimum of 500 spaces would be provided. The permanent casino would comprise 103,500 total square feet and would include 1,500 gaming machines and 35 table games, two restaurants, and other facilities. Under Alternative B, only the permanent casino would be constructed. The Pueblo of Jemez, through its tribal gaming enterprise, would operate and manage the casino. The remaining 31.855-acre parcel of fee land would be used for a three-story hotel and associated parking to be operated by the developer, Circle P Investments of New Mexico, LLC. Approximately 45 acres of conservation area would preserve natural features of the project site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed casino would provide a stable and sustainable source of revenue and employment at a level that would support a stronger, more self-sufficient tribal government. Revenues would help address issues such as: insufficient and substandard housing; child care, elder care, and emergency medical care; water and wastewater facilities and other infrastructure; persistent high unemployment and lack of resources for scholarships and job training; and continued improvement of basic health care and law enforcement. Implementation would have positive effects to minority and low-income populations in Anthony and Dona Ana County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the permanent loss of 50 to 60 acres of a mix of Chihuahuan Desert scrub and plains-mesa sand scrub habitat. Sand prickly pear cactus present on a small fraction of the project area would be transplanted. Site grading and excavation would create temporary soil instability with potential for wind erosion and increase potential for sediment discharge to surface waters. Increases in storm water runoff would be significant, but volume would be minimized by the construction of detention ponds. One prehistoric site would be directly impacted. Traffic along State Road 404 would more than double from current conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 460 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110106, Draft EIS--288 pages, Appendices: Volume I--304 pages, Volume II--380 pages, Volume III--693 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Erosion KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PUEBLO+OF+JEMEZ+70.277+ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+DONA+ANA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=PUEBLO+OF+JEMEZ+70.277+ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+DONA+ANA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PUEBLO OF JEMEZ 70.277 ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - PUEBLO OF JEMEZ 70.277 ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 868224389; 14862-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of 70.277 acres of a 102.13-acre tract into federal trust for the Pueblo of Jemez to construct and operate a tribal casino and hotel in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, is proposed. The 70.277-acre parcel is currently held in fee simple, but an application to place the land in trust for gaming purposes is pending with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Pueblo of Jemez is located 50 miles northwest of Albuquerque in a remote rural area and the proposed project is an economic development initiative. The tribe has a long history of uncertain financial stability and a growing and young membership who have significant unmet housing, economic, and social needs. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are addressed in this draft EIS. Two alternatives, Alternative A and Alternative B, would utilize the same site located in the southwest corner of Interstate 10 and State Road 404, adjacent to the municipality of Anthony. Under Alternative A, a temporary casino consisting of an engineered modular clear-span membrane structure would be erected and operated during a period of approximately two years while planning and construction of a permanent facility would be carried out. Asphalt parking with a minimum of 500 spaces would be provided. The permanent casino would comprise 103,500 total square feet and would include 1,500 gaming machines and 35 table games, two restaurants, and other facilities. Under Alternative B, only the permanent casino would be constructed. The Pueblo of Jemez, through its tribal gaming enterprise, would operate and manage the casino. The remaining 31.855-acre parcel of fee land would be used for a three-story hotel and associated parking to be operated by the developer, Circle P Investments of New Mexico, LLC. Approximately 45 acres of conservation area would preserve natural features of the project site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed casino would provide a stable and sustainable source of revenue and employment at a level that would support a stronger, more self-sufficient tribal government. Revenues would help address issues such as: insufficient and substandard housing; child care, elder care, and emergency medical care; water and wastewater facilities and other infrastructure; persistent high unemployment and lack of resources for scholarships and job training; and continued improvement of basic health care and law enforcement. Implementation would have positive effects to minority and low-income populations in Anthony and Dona Ana County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the permanent loss of 50 to 60 acres of a mix of Chihuahuan Desert scrub and plains-mesa sand scrub habitat. Sand prickly pear cactus present on a small fraction of the project area would be transplanted. Site grading and excavation would create temporary soil instability with potential for wind erosion and increase potential for sediment discharge to surface waters. Increases in storm water runoff would be significant, but volume would be minimized by the construction of detention ponds. One prehistoric site would be directly impacted. Traffic along State Road 404 would more than double from current conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 460 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110106, Draft EIS--288 pages, Appendices: Volume I--304 pages, Volume II--380 pages, Volume III--693 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Erosion KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224389?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PUEBLO+OF+JEMEZ+70.277+ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+DONA+ANA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=PUEBLO+OF+JEMEZ+70.277+ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+DONA+ANA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PUEBLO OF JEMEZ 70.277 ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - PUEBLO OF JEMEZ 70.277 ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 868224386; 14862-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of 70.277 acres of a 102.13-acre tract into federal trust for the Pueblo of Jemez to construct and operate a tribal casino and hotel in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, is proposed. The 70.277-acre parcel is currently held in fee simple, but an application to place the land in trust for gaming purposes is pending with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Pueblo of Jemez is located 50 miles northwest of Albuquerque in a remote rural area and the proposed project is an economic development initiative. The tribe has a long history of uncertain financial stability and a growing and young membership who have significant unmet housing, economic, and social needs. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are addressed in this draft EIS. Two alternatives, Alternative A and Alternative B, would utilize the same site located in the southwest corner of Interstate 10 and State Road 404, adjacent to the municipality of Anthony. Under Alternative A, a temporary casino consisting of an engineered modular clear-span membrane structure would be erected and operated during a period of approximately two years while planning and construction of a permanent facility would be carried out. Asphalt parking with a minimum of 500 spaces would be provided. The permanent casino would comprise 103,500 total square feet and would include 1,500 gaming machines and 35 table games, two restaurants, and other facilities. Under Alternative B, only the permanent casino would be constructed. The Pueblo of Jemez, through its tribal gaming enterprise, would operate and manage the casino. The remaining 31.855-acre parcel of fee land would be used for a three-story hotel and associated parking to be operated by the developer, Circle P Investments of New Mexico, LLC. Approximately 45 acres of conservation area would preserve natural features of the project site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed casino would provide a stable and sustainable source of revenue and employment at a level that would support a stronger, more self-sufficient tribal government. Revenues would help address issues such as: insufficient and substandard housing; child care, elder care, and emergency medical care; water and wastewater facilities and other infrastructure; persistent high unemployment and lack of resources for scholarships and job training; and continued improvement of basic health care and law enforcement. Implementation would have positive effects to minority and low-income populations in Anthony and Dona Ana County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the permanent loss of 50 to 60 acres of a mix of Chihuahuan Desert scrub and plains-mesa sand scrub habitat. Sand prickly pear cactus present on a small fraction of the project area would be transplanted. Site grading and excavation would create temporary soil instability with potential for wind erosion and increase potential for sediment discharge to surface waters. Increases in storm water runoff would be significant, but volume would be minimized by the construction of detention ponds. One prehistoric site would be directly impacted. Traffic along State Road 404 would more than double from current conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 460 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110106, Draft EIS--288 pages, Appendices: Volume I--304 pages, Volume II--380 pages, Volume III--693 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Erosion KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224386?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PUEBLO+OF+JEMEZ+70.277+ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+DONA+ANA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=PUEBLO+OF+JEMEZ+70.277+ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+DONA+ANA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 25 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224255; 14855-9_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 20 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224219; 14855-9_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224219?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 8 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224195; 14855-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 29 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224083; 14855-9_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224083?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 13 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223728; 14856-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223728?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 12 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223712; 14856-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223712?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223695; 14856-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223695?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223680; 14856-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223680?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223666; 14856-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223666?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223656; 14856-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223656?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223647; 14856-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223647?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223637; 14856-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223637?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 27 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223435; 14856-0_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223435?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 26 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223422; 14856-0_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223422?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 25 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223407; 14856-0_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 24 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223396; 14856-0_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 23 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223375; 14856-0_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 17 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223368; 14856-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223368?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 16 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223364; 14856-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223364?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 15 of 29] T2 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 868223352; 14856-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223352?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 868222901; 14861-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 138-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line extending 30 miles from Tropic to Hatch, Garfield County, Utah is proposed. Garkane Energy Cooperative (Garkane) delivers electrical service to more than 11,000 customers in northern Arizona and southern Utah, including customers in Hatch and Tropic. Population growth in Garfield and Kane counties has resulted in a 66 percent increase in Garkanes electrical demand during the past five years and has caused an overloading of the 69-kV transmission line that currently serves the area. Garkane has filed applications for special use permits and/or rights-of-way grants for the proposed transmission line on lands managed by: the U.S. Forest Service, Dixie National Forest (DNF); U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM); State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; and potentially the National Park Service, Bryce Canyon National Park. The proposed line would replace most of the existing 69-kV line. This final EIS analyzes five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D). Under the preferred alternative (Alternative E), the total length of the route would be 29.4 miles. Segment C1 (17.36 miles) would parallel the existing 230-kV Rocky Mountain Power/PacifiCorp transmission line through the GSENM and cross onto the DNF through Cedar Fork Canyon. The route would then turn west to cross Johns Valley, pass north of the Bryce Canyon Airport, cross State Route 12 and Johnson Bench, and pass south of Wilson Peak. From there it would traverse down Hillsdale Canyon, cross the Sunset Cliffs, and traverse west to the Hatch Substation. Approximately 16.23 miles of the existing 69-kV transmission line infrastructure from the Bryce Canyon Substation to the Hatch Mountain Substation would be removed. The preferred alternative would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan by changing the designation of a 300-foot wide, 3.7-mile long stretch (133.74 acres) of the primitive zone to passage zone. The Record of Decision documents the decision to issue a special use authorization to Garkane for a 100-foot wide easement on 13.2 miles of DNF-managed public lands following the preferred alternative route (Alternative E) and to authorize a special use permit to Garkane to widen and stabilize 3.5 miles of existing administrative access routes in Cedar Fork Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide cost-effective electrical transmission capacity to meet present and future demand west of Tropic and in the Hatch area. The new capacity would eliminate the need for routine use of back-up diesel generators and would improve reliability of the electrical system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the existing 69-kV transmission line and rehabilitation of the right-of-way would benefit Utah prairie dog in the long-term, but incidental take of the species could occur in the short-term. Construction would impact habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain elk, and migratory birds. The presence of roads and a transmission line could impact the natural characteristics and wilderness values of distinctive land areas including inventoried roadless areas, wilderness study areas, recommended wilderness areas, primitive zones, and the Bryce Canyon Lodge National Historic Landmark. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0369D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110105, Final EIS--100 pages and maps, Record of Decision--36 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bryce Canyon National Park KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument KW - Utah KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cedar City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 868222887; 14861-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 138-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line extending 30 miles from Tropic to Hatch, Garfield County, Utah is proposed. Garkane Energy Cooperative (Garkane) delivers electrical service to more than 11,000 customers in northern Arizona and southern Utah, including customers in Hatch and Tropic. Population growth in Garfield and Kane counties has resulted in a 66 percent increase in Garkanes electrical demand during the past five years and has caused an overloading of the 69-kV transmission line that currently serves the area. Garkane has filed applications for special use permits and/or rights-of-way grants for the proposed transmission line on lands managed by: the U.S. Forest Service, Dixie National Forest (DNF); U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM); State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; and potentially the National Park Service, Bryce Canyon National Park. The proposed line would replace most of the existing 69-kV line. This final EIS analyzes five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D). Under the preferred alternative (Alternative E), the total length of the route would be 29.4 miles. Segment C1 (17.36 miles) would parallel the existing 230-kV Rocky Mountain Power/PacifiCorp transmission line through the GSENM and cross onto the DNF through Cedar Fork Canyon. The route would then turn west to cross Johns Valley, pass north of the Bryce Canyon Airport, cross State Route 12 and Johnson Bench, and pass south of Wilson Peak. From there it would traverse down Hillsdale Canyon, cross the Sunset Cliffs, and traverse west to the Hatch Substation. Approximately 16.23 miles of the existing 69-kV transmission line infrastructure from the Bryce Canyon Substation to the Hatch Mountain Substation would be removed. The preferred alternative would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan by changing the designation of a 300-foot wide, 3.7-mile long stretch (133.74 acres) of the primitive zone to passage zone. The Record of Decision documents the decision to issue a special use authorization to Garkane for a 100-foot wide easement on 13.2 miles of DNF-managed public lands following the preferred alternative route (Alternative E) and to authorize a special use permit to Garkane to widen and stabilize 3.5 miles of existing administrative access routes in Cedar Fork Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide cost-effective electrical transmission capacity to meet present and future demand west of Tropic and in the Hatch area. The new capacity would eliminate the need for routine use of back-up diesel generators and would improve reliability of the electrical system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the existing 69-kV transmission line and rehabilitation of the right-of-way would benefit Utah prairie dog in the long-term, but incidental take of the species could occur in the short-term. Construction would impact habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain elk, and migratory birds. The presence of roads and a transmission line could impact the natural characteristics and wilderness values of distinctive land areas including inventoried roadless areas, wilderness study areas, recommended wilderness areas, primitive zones, and the Bryce Canyon Lodge National Historic Landmark. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0369D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110105, Final EIS--100 pages and maps, Record of Decision--36 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bryce Canyon National Park KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument KW - Utah KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cedar City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 868222878; 14861-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 138-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line extending 30 miles from Tropic to Hatch, Garfield County, Utah is proposed. Garkane Energy Cooperative (Garkane) delivers electrical service to more than 11,000 customers in northern Arizona and southern Utah, including customers in Hatch and Tropic. Population growth in Garfield and Kane counties has resulted in a 66 percent increase in Garkanes electrical demand during the past five years and has caused an overloading of the 69-kV transmission line that currently serves the area. Garkane has filed applications for special use permits and/or rights-of-way grants for the proposed transmission line on lands managed by: the U.S. Forest Service, Dixie National Forest (DNF); U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM); State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; and potentially the National Park Service, Bryce Canyon National Park. The proposed line would replace most of the existing 69-kV line. This final EIS analyzes five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D). Under the preferred alternative (Alternative E), the total length of the route would be 29.4 miles. Segment C1 (17.36 miles) would parallel the existing 230-kV Rocky Mountain Power/PacifiCorp transmission line through the GSENM and cross onto the DNF through Cedar Fork Canyon. The route would then turn west to cross Johns Valley, pass north of the Bryce Canyon Airport, cross State Route 12 and Johnson Bench, and pass south of Wilson Peak. From there it would traverse down Hillsdale Canyon, cross the Sunset Cliffs, and traverse west to the Hatch Substation. Approximately 16.23 miles of the existing 69-kV transmission line infrastructure from the Bryce Canyon Substation to the Hatch Mountain Substation would be removed. The preferred alternative would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan by changing the designation of a 300-foot wide, 3.7-mile long stretch (133.74 acres) of the primitive zone to passage zone. The Record of Decision documents the decision to issue a special use authorization to Garkane for a 100-foot wide easement on 13.2 miles of DNF-managed public lands following the preferred alternative route (Alternative E) and to authorize a special use permit to Garkane to widen and stabilize 3.5 miles of existing administrative access routes in Cedar Fork Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide cost-effective electrical transmission capacity to meet present and future demand west of Tropic and in the Hatch area. The new capacity would eliminate the need for routine use of back-up diesel generators and would improve reliability of the electrical system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the existing 69-kV transmission line and rehabilitation of the right-of-way would benefit Utah prairie dog in the long-term, but incidental take of the species could occur in the short-term. Construction would impact habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain elk, and migratory birds. The presence of roads and a transmission line could impact the natural characteristics and wilderness values of distinctive land areas including inventoried roadless areas, wilderness study areas, recommended wilderness areas, primitive zones, and the Bryce Canyon Lodge National Historic Landmark. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0369D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110105, Final EIS--100 pages and maps, Record of Decision--36 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bryce Canyon National Park KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument KW - Utah KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222878?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cedar City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 868222858; 14861-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 138-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line extending 30 miles from Tropic to Hatch, Garfield County, Utah is proposed. Garkane Energy Cooperative (Garkane) delivers electrical service to more than 11,000 customers in northern Arizona and southern Utah, including customers in Hatch and Tropic. Population growth in Garfield and Kane counties has resulted in a 66 percent increase in Garkanes electrical demand during the past five years and has caused an overloading of the 69-kV transmission line that currently serves the area. Garkane has filed applications for special use permits and/or rights-of-way grants for the proposed transmission line on lands managed by: the U.S. Forest Service, Dixie National Forest (DNF); U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM); State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; and potentially the National Park Service, Bryce Canyon National Park. The proposed line would replace most of the existing 69-kV line. This final EIS analyzes five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D). Under the preferred alternative (Alternative E), the total length of the route would be 29.4 miles. Segment C1 (17.36 miles) would parallel the existing 230-kV Rocky Mountain Power/PacifiCorp transmission line through the GSENM and cross onto the DNF through Cedar Fork Canyon. The route would then turn west to cross Johns Valley, pass north of the Bryce Canyon Airport, cross State Route 12 and Johnson Bench, and pass south of Wilson Peak. From there it would traverse down Hillsdale Canyon, cross the Sunset Cliffs, and traverse west to the Hatch Substation. Approximately 16.23 miles of the existing 69-kV transmission line infrastructure from the Bryce Canyon Substation to the Hatch Mountain Substation would be removed. The preferred alternative would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan by changing the designation of a 300-foot wide, 3.7-mile long stretch (133.74 acres) of the primitive zone to passage zone. The Record of Decision documents the decision to issue a special use authorization to Garkane for a 100-foot wide easement on 13.2 miles of DNF-managed public lands following the preferred alternative route (Alternative E) and to authorize a special use permit to Garkane to widen and stabilize 3.5 miles of existing administrative access routes in Cedar Fork Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide cost-effective electrical transmission capacity to meet present and future demand west of Tropic and in the Hatch area. The new capacity would eliminate the need for routine use of back-up diesel generators and would improve reliability of the electrical system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the existing 69-kV transmission line and rehabilitation of the right-of-way would benefit Utah prairie dog in the long-term, but incidental take of the species could occur in the short-term. Construction would impact habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain elk, and migratory birds. The presence of roads and a transmission line could impact the natural characteristics and wilderness values of distinctive land areas including inventoried roadless areas, wilderness study areas, recommended wilderness areas, primitive zones, and the Bryce Canyon Lodge National Historic Landmark. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0369D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110105, Final EIS--100 pages and maps, Record of Decision--36 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bryce Canyon National Park KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument KW - Utah KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222858?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cedar City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 868222836; 14861-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 138-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line extending 30 miles from Tropic to Hatch, Garfield County, Utah is proposed. Garkane Energy Cooperative (Garkane) delivers electrical service to more than 11,000 customers in northern Arizona and southern Utah, including customers in Hatch and Tropic. Population growth in Garfield and Kane counties has resulted in a 66 percent increase in Garkanes electrical demand during the past five years and has caused an overloading of the 69-kV transmission line that currently serves the area. Garkane has filed applications for special use permits and/or rights-of-way grants for the proposed transmission line on lands managed by: the U.S. Forest Service, Dixie National Forest (DNF); U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM); State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; and potentially the National Park Service, Bryce Canyon National Park. The proposed line would replace most of the existing 69-kV line. This final EIS analyzes five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D). Under the preferred alternative (Alternative E), the total length of the route would be 29.4 miles. Segment C1 (17.36 miles) would parallel the existing 230-kV Rocky Mountain Power/PacifiCorp transmission line through the GSENM and cross onto the DNF through Cedar Fork Canyon. The route would then turn west to cross Johns Valley, pass north of the Bryce Canyon Airport, cross State Route 12 and Johnson Bench, and pass south of Wilson Peak. From there it would traverse down Hillsdale Canyon, cross the Sunset Cliffs, and traverse west to the Hatch Substation. Approximately 16.23 miles of the existing 69-kV transmission line infrastructure from the Bryce Canyon Substation to the Hatch Mountain Substation would be removed. The preferred alternative would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan by changing the designation of a 300-foot wide, 3.7-mile long stretch (133.74 acres) of the primitive zone to passage zone. The Record of Decision documents the decision to issue a special use authorization to Garkane for a 100-foot wide easement on 13.2 miles of DNF-managed public lands following the preferred alternative route (Alternative E) and to authorize a special use permit to Garkane to widen and stabilize 3.5 miles of existing administrative access routes in Cedar Fork Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide cost-effective electrical transmission capacity to meet present and future demand west of Tropic and in the Hatch area. The new capacity would eliminate the need for routine use of back-up diesel generators and would improve reliability of the electrical system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the existing 69-kV transmission line and rehabilitation of the right-of-way would benefit Utah prairie dog in the long-term, but incidental take of the species could occur in the short-term. Construction would impact habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain elk, and migratory birds. The presence of roads and a transmission line could impact the natural characteristics and wilderness values of distinctive land areas including inventoried roadless areas, wilderness study areas, recommended wilderness areas, primitive zones, and the Bryce Canyon Lodge National Historic Landmark. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0369D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110105, Final EIS--100 pages and maps, Record of Decision--36 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bryce Canyon National Park KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument KW - Utah KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222836?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cedar City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHINA MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT AND JARBIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 866241647; 14856 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the China Mountain Wind Project in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located in south-central Idaho and northeast Nevada, southwest of Rogerson, Idaho and west of Jackpot, Nevada. China Mountain Wind, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., and NV Energy have submitted an application for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of up to a 425-megawatt wind energy facility consisting of up to 170 wind turbines, 83 miles of all-weather gravel roads, 19 miles of overhead electric transmission line, up to three permanent meteorological towers, three electric substations, and two operation and maintenance facilities. The project would generate and deliver electrical power to the electrical transmission grid via an NV Energy transmission line. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species, tribal treaty rights and interests, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, water quality, noise, vegetation, public access, recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, and revision of the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP). Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B1) would authorize a ROW on BLM-administered lands for the construction and operation of 170 wind turbines and associated facilities. Three phased alternatives (Alternatives B2a, B2b, and B2c) would authorize a ROW for the same facilities as the proposed action; however, under these alternatives implementation would be constructed in two phases. The remaining alternatives would also authorize a ROW for the construction and operation of wind turbines and associated facilities: Alternative C would authorize 152 wind turbines; Alternative D would authorize 124 wind turbines; Alternative E would authorize 120 wind turbines; and Alternative F would authorize 105 wind turbines. Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required for all of the alternatives except the No Action Alternative and Alternative E. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide commercial-scale wind power using technology that is currently available, technically feasible, and economically viable, and that can interconnect with and deliver electricity to an existing transmission system. The electric generation facility would be located on public lands with high wind resource potential and would help satisfy the increased demand for renewable electricity in Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would remove 425 to 597 acres of key sage-grouse habitat and would fragment additional habitat. The amendment to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would reduce protection to sage-grouse by removing seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers. Project activities would have high potential for direct impacts on an estimated 109 to 217 prehistoric, historic, and/or multiple component sites. Turbines would be visible from one or more of 12 key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110100, Volume I--352 pages, Volume II--772 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-T010-2011-0008-EIS KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/866241647?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CHINA+MOUNTAIN+WIND+PROJECT+AND+JARBIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ELKO+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, Twin Falls, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PUEBLO OF JEMEZ 70.277 ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 16372641; 14862 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of 70.277 acres of a 102.13-acre tract into federal trust for the Pueblo of Jemez to construct and operate a tribal casino and hotel in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, is proposed. The 70.277-acre parcel is currently held in fee simple, but an application to place the land in trust for gaming purposes is pending with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Pueblo of Jemez is located 50 miles northwest of Albuquerque in a remote rural area and the proposed project is an economic development initiative. The tribe has a long history of uncertain financial stability and a growing and young membership who have significant unmet housing, economic, and social needs. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are addressed in this draft EIS. Two alternatives, Alternative A and Alternative B, would utilize the same site located in the southwest corner of Interstate 10 and State Road 404, adjacent to the municipality of Anthony. Under Alternative A, a temporary casino consisting of an engineered modular clear-span membrane structure would be erected and operated during a period of approximately two years while planning and construction of a permanent facility would be carried out. Asphalt parking with a minimum of 500 spaces would be provided. The permanent casino would comprise 103,500 total square feet and would include 1,500 gaming machines and 35 table games, two restaurants, and other facilities. Under Alternative B, only the permanent casino would be constructed. The Pueblo of Jemez, through its tribal gaming enterprise, would operate and manage the casino. The remaining 31.855-acre parcel of fee land would be used for a three-story hotel and associated parking to be operated by the developer, Circle P Investments of New Mexico, LLC. Approximately 45 acres of conservation area would preserve natural features of the project site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed casino would provide a stable and sustainable source of revenue and employment at a level that would support a stronger, more self-sufficient tribal government. Revenues would help address issues such as: insufficient and substandard housing; child care, elder care, and emergency medical care; water and wastewater facilities and other infrastructure; persistent high unemployment and lack of resources for scholarships and job training; and continued improvement of basic health care and law enforcement. Implementation would have positive effects to minority and low-income populations in Anthony and Dona Ana County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the permanent loss of 50 to 60 acres of a mix of Chihuahuan Desert scrub and plains-mesa sand scrub habitat. Sand prickly pear cactus present on a small fraction of the project area would be transplanted. Site grading and excavation would create temporary soil instability with potential for wind erosion and increase potential for sediment discharge to surface waters. Increases in storm water runoff would be significant, but volume would be minimized by the construction of detention ponds. One prehistoric site would be directly impacted. Traffic along State Road 404 would more than double from current conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 460 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110106, Draft EIS--288 pages, Appendices: Volume I--304 pages, Volume II--380 pages, Volume III--693 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Erosion KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372641?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PUEBLO+OF+JEMEZ+70.277+ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+DONA+ANA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=PUEBLO+OF+JEMEZ+70.277+ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+DONA+ANA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 16369437; 14861 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 138-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line extending 30 miles from Tropic to Hatch, Garfield County, Utah is proposed. Garkane Energy Cooperative (Garkane) delivers electrical service to more than 11,000 customers in northern Arizona and southern Utah, including customers in Hatch and Tropic. Population growth in Garfield and Kane counties has resulted in a 66 percent increase in Garkanes electrical demand during the past five years and has caused an overloading of the 69-kV transmission line that currently serves the area. Garkane has filed applications for special use permits and/or rights-of-way grants for the proposed transmission line on lands managed by: the U.S. Forest Service, Dixie National Forest (DNF); U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM); State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; and potentially the National Park Service, Bryce Canyon National Park. The proposed line would replace most of the existing 69-kV line. This final EIS analyzes five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D). Under the preferred alternative (Alternative E), the total length of the route would be 29.4 miles. Segment C1 (17.36 miles) would parallel the existing 230-kV Rocky Mountain Power/PacifiCorp transmission line through the GSENM and cross onto the DNF through Cedar Fork Canyon. The route would then turn west to cross Johns Valley, pass north of the Bryce Canyon Airport, cross State Route 12 and Johnson Bench, and pass south of Wilson Peak. From there it would traverse down Hillsdale Canyon, cross the Sunset Cliffs, and traverse west to the Hatch Substation. Approximately 16.23 miles of the existing 69-kV transmission line infrastructure from the Bryce Canyon Substation to the Hatch Mountain Substation would be removed. The preferred alternative would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan by changing the designation of a 300-foot wide, 3.7-mile long stretch (133.74 acres) of the primitive zone to passage zone. The Record of Decision documents the decision to issue a special use authorization to Garkane for a 100-foot wide easement on 13.2 miles of DNF-managed public lands following the preferred alternative route (Alternative E) and to authorize a special use permit to Garkane to widen and stabilize 3.5 miles of existing administrative access routes in Cedar Fork Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide cost-effective electrical transmission capacity to meet present and future demand west of Tropic and in the Hatch area. The new capacity would eliminate the need for routine use of back-up diesel generators and would improve reliability of the electrical system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the existing 69-kV transmission line and rehabilitation of the right-of-way would benefit Utah prairie dog in the long-term, but incidental take of the species could occur in the short-term. Construction would impact habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain elk, and migratory birds. The presence of roads and a transmission line could impact the natural characteristics and wilderness values of distinctive land areas including inventoried roadless areas, wilderness study areas, recommended wilderness areas, primitive zones, and the Bryce Canyon Lodge National Historic Landmark. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0369D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110105, Final EIS--100 pages and maps, Record of Decision--36 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bryce Canyon National Park KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument KW - Utah KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16369437?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cedar City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER -